Wisdom of Ancestors - Tidbits of Wisdom

Does it have to be that way with our Media Choices?

2015-10-26T14:49:00.001-07:00

For those of us that have an interest in Scottish culture etc the release of the TV Series OUTLANDER recently has been a boon.... Well maybe.

On the surface it is very interesting and appears authentic. A little to authentic in some respects if you believe life was hard and full of marauding soldiers that have their way with people back in the 1700's.

Here is a sample of some of the questionably family friendly content as described found on the IMDB.COM site..

A woman rips her dress open, full nudity

A man puts his hand up a woman's dress and she starts moaning. No nudity but the scene lasts for quite a while

A woman tries to have sex with a married man, she is wearing a very revealing dress, they start kissing but he tells her to stop

several attempts to rape, nudity involved.

A man is seen with a gunshot wound which is then taken care of by a nurse.

Several men are attacked by a boar. They have graphic wounds in their legs. One man's intestines are exposed.

A little boy has a nail hammered through his ear as a form of punishment. He screams in pain, and blood pours out of his wound.

A man tries to rape a woman in episode one, he lifts her skirts up to expose her bottom but he is interrupted

The same man tries to rape a woman in a later episode, he bends her over the table and lifts her skirts, rips open her dress to reveal her breasts but he is interrupted

A man and woman have sex in a field, a woman's dress has been ripped open to reveal her breasts. They are interrupted by some soldiers, one tries to rape the woman but nothing is seen and he is stopped.

In episode 12, one attempted rape scene goes on for a while. In the prolonged scene the man exposes his genitals while we watch him rub them but being unable to become erect to rape the woman he is with. He beats her several times before she blacks out, it is unclear what occurred afterwards.

In episode 14, two women talk while one of them squeezes the breast-milk out of each one of her nipples into a cup. This goes on for a couple of minutes.

A group of travelers comes across two bodies hanging from crosses. The men have been crucified and otherwise abused. Close-ups of the bodies are shown and the victims have been dead for about a week.

Various scenes in which severely wounded men are being treated, which display a high level of anxiety and urge combined with screaming or moaning and images of blood gushing.

This is just a sampling of the various types of content. The area they list are Gore & Violence, Sex & Nudity, Frightening/Intense Scenes, Alcohol/Drugs/Smoking, and Profanity. They have listings for each one.... The Sex section is more then a screen full at regular font size.

So the question is this - Do we really have to have all this profanity, sensual material etc in our programs? Could they not have made the same program and not included the majority of this material? Is there a way to make a TV series for example that is still basically historically accurate without having to throw in so much sex, violence and the like?

I once was watching a documentary on the making of the God Father Movie. At one point Francis Coppella said there was rumors that a violence director would be brought in to make the movie more violent etc. Kind of scary thinking of why do they need to add that stuff in..... many times it does not help the movie one bit.

That becomes the challenge. How do those of us that still have morals or want to have morals push for more quality programming. I'd love some good Scottish culture programming, that is not necessarily documentary and potentially dull. I'd also like to have said program(s) not be full of rape scenes.

We gave away our copy of the Rob Roy movie featuring Liam Neeson. Over all the movie was good. The story very authentic, well paced, written and acted. However, one part that lasts for say 2 minutes in the movie made us give it up.... the Raping of the wife by Cunningham. You might know what I'm talking about if you've seen the movie. If you haven't your missing nothing. We'll take our Disney version any day since it is clean. Slightly different focus, style, and the like but, good no the less.

Another case in point. We watch LADYKILLERS featuring Tom Hanks the other night. Good overall remake and in some respects better especially if you could remove all the language.

So that is the challenge.... finding a way to get good entertaining material while still keeping our morals, and minds clean from the filth that is present in so much programming.

I guess one of the few ways to know if you should even be watching something is this - If you would not watch it with your kids present should you be watching it at all.
The US has a rating system though as most of you have found out - PG-13 does not always means your kids should be watching it...... the lines are so grey these days it is hard to tell just from the rating. Some other countries have rating but, they too are equally vague and not really helpful.

mpaa.org


Highest grossing films by Rating - PG-13 does best - https://stephenfollows.com/which-mpaa-rating-earns-the-most-money/

A few sites have been developed over the last few years in regards to rating media content in a different way beyond the normal rating system.

One such site is OK.com uses an age rating 6+ or say 17+ as the minimum age that should be watching this material. Seems to be a popular way of doing things in other countries for ratings.

Kids in mind is another -

They don't put an overall rating on a movie or program. They rank the areas of concern - profanity, nudity, violence etc. That way you can find out if a movie is high for say profanity but, very low for everything else.

ASSIGNED NUMBERS
Unlike the MPAA we do not assign one inscrutable rating based on age, but 3 objective ratings for SEX/NUDITY, VIOLENCE/GORE and PROFANITY on a scale of 0 to 10, from lowest to highest, depending on quantity and context. - Kids-in-mind.com

The LadyKillers tends to be off the chart for profanity but, in the middle for the other factors.
Had I known that I'm not sure I would have even watch any of it.

The problem is some rate just movies, or just TV. There is not a one stop shop for everything.... though I guess it never will be since you'd need one that cover all the countries of the world.

I'd like to put some well known Scottish culture films or programs and a cleaner alternative

Rob Roy (Liam Neeson) - Rob Roy, The Highland Rogue (by Disney), Count of Monte Cristo

Brave Heart (Mel Gibson) - Can not figure out a good substitute.

Outlander (Starz Series) - Kidnapped, Poldark(PBS)

Honorable Mention(s) - The Mission, Lord of the Ring Series, Robin Hood Prince of Thieves, The Eagle, Willow
(some of these may be borderline for Violence etc)

Again some styles of films and topics are very hard to tone down the action, etc. What you have to look for are the ones that might have a bit of fighting, though exclude unnecessary language or sex.

Buaidh - NO - Bas

Historic Moment - New Apostles Part 2

2015-10-05T10:25:00.001-07:00

On Saturday October 3rd in the Saturday Afternoon session of the 185th Semi-Annual General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints history was made.
Three new apostles (#NewApostles) were called - Donald A. Rasband, Gary E. Stevenson, and Dale G. Renlund, the 98th, 99th, and 100th Apostles in the Last Dispensation.

See my previous post on how apostles are called - Historic Moment - New Apostle(s)

In some respects things went as expected, while at the same time things did not go as expected. What this shows is that the expected is never what you get. Common man is not at the helm of the church. These calls were purely by revelation, not by voting, political pressure, best guess, political correctness, or the like.

In each case these men that have been selected to fill the vacancies in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles have been prepared for some time. Each has a unique though extensive period of Church service. In all cases unique service as full missionaries, members of the 1st quorum of Seventy, and more......

Over time we will find that this prior service will be of a blessing to the worldwide church. Just because they all grew up in Utah does not mean they do not have global experience, or experience.

For example Elder Steveson served a mission in Japan. Latter he served again a as a mission president. Then as a general authority the president of the Asia North area. Has this brother been prepared for some time as of yet unfulfilled activity in Asia?

It is these type of experiences that will ultimately help as they fulfill their callings as members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

As always someone had to ask why these guys were called and not someone from say South America or another area. Why not some that does not fit the 80% norm of Utah Caucasians with a different skin tone. To get that answer you'll need to ask the source.... Yes, even if you agree with the recent changes you should get your own personal confirmation that this was indeed a call from the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

7 ¶Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
Matthew 7:7

For if we believe this to be the true and living church we must accept the fact there is continuing revelation and that the person that can receive that revelation is Thomas S. Monson.

To see more information on why the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the true and living church please see my blog post on the subject.

True and Living Church

Buaidh - NO - Bas

Historic Moment - New Apostle(s)

2015-10-01T14:11:00.001-07:00

Within the last 6 months 3 members of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints passed away. All basically passed away from complications of old Age.

So that leaves 3 vacancies in the Council of the Twelve.

The last time this type of situation occurred was in 1906. Two members resigned and one had died.

Generally, with one vacancy you have it filled at the next conference. Three, who knows.
Here are some comments on the process and protocol of choosing a new apostle.

"Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles says the selection and calling of new Apostles is the prerogative of the president of the Church.
“[President Monson’s] practice has been to ask each of his counselors and the members of the Quorum of the Twelve to give him names they would recommend for his consideration, not to discuss with each other but just individually, to give him whatever name or names they feel impressed he ought to look at," he says.

“What process he goes through exactly, I'm not sure. That’s, again, something private he pursues. He then brings back, when he’s reached his decision and had the inspiration he needs, the name or names to the council that we have of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to sustain it. That goes forward to general conference” (in Tadd Walsh, "Elder Christofferson Talks about How President Monson Calls a New Apostle, Reflects on Elder Scott,” Deseret News, Sept. 24, 2015)."
Calling an Apostle of God

"President Russell M. Nelson, President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, teaches: “All leaders in the Lord’s Church are called by proper authority. No prophet or any other leader in this Church, for that matter, has ever called himself or herself. No prophet has ever been elected. The Lord made that clear when He said, ‘Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you’ (John 15:16). You and I do not ‘vote’ on Church leaders at any level. We do, though, have the privilege of sustaining them” (“Sustaining the Prophets,” Oct. 2014 general conference)."
Calling an Apostle of God

In as much as the prophet selects the new Apostles(s) after careful consideration and pray he may delay the call or other circumstance may come into play.

“There have been conferences where a vacancy has not been filled,” he explained. “President Heber J. Grant had announced to the Twelve that ‘so and so’ would be called, but it didn’t happen. Members of the Twelve asked him when the conference was over why he didn’t fill the vacancy. He replied that the man he said would be called wasn’t ready yet.”
President Nelson Reflects on Being an Apostle of the Lord

"President Nelson’s call to the Twelve filled a vacancy that had lasted for more than a year. Elder LeGrand Richards died on January 11, 1983. No new Apostle was sustained during the April or the October general conferences of that year. Russell M. Nelson, a world-renowned heart surgeon, was sustained as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve on April 7, 1984. During the same session, Dallin H. Oaks, a lawyer and a justice of the Utah Supreme Court, was called to fill the vacancy created by the death of Elder Mark E. Petersen on January 11, 1984."
President Nelson Reflects on Being an Apostle of the Lord

So what can we guarantee will happen during conference starting Saturday October 3rd?
That the Prophet of God and head of the Living church on earth has been in communication with Heavenly Father and the Lord Jesus Christ as to whom they want to fill the vacancies in the Quorum of the 12 Apostles. We also know that if one or more Apostles are called it will be the right person for the assignment at the right time. We should not attempt to second guess or speculate as to who it will be. Many times it is not as we expected but, exactly who we needed.

Take for instance Elder Neil L. Andersen. He served as a mission president in France, and later as a general authority in Brazil, Europe, and Central America. So he has the international flavor, language skills and experience necessary to help the church as it grows in places like Latin America.
So many might have though a non-US person would be called like Elder Dieter F Uchtdoft was in the past. It really was not necessary since a person had been prepared for many years that would work perfectly with the ever growing international part of the church.

There are many great candidates. Many would do fine. Each with special unique skills and attributes. Does it have to be a Non-US person? Not necessarily.... though as mentioned before there are curtain advantages to each person.
I do know the person or persons called will be just the right person at just the right time.....
As of this posting likely that have already had a chance to receive their call from a member of the First Presidency.

So join with me and watch the first session of Conference Saturday October 3rd 10 AM (MST).

Buaidh - NO - BAS

Comparing Mutual Funds

2015-09-29T10:05:00.001-07:00

Even before the recent correction in the markets at the end of August 2015 many people have always wanted to know if they have a good mutual fund in their portfolio. Many think they might but, really don't have a good way to verify.
Some go after the high recent return, others have heard of the hold/wait principle.

In as much as it is advised to hold and not panic just because the S&P 500 or Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 5 % in one day, how do you know if one mutual fund is better then another, or a stock for that matter.

I came to the conclusion that there are a couple of things that have to be looked at to help determine if one mutual fund is better then another. First you have to determine your investment goal.
If it is short term (not likely that you are doing this in an IRA or 401(k) account), then the price is all that really matters. You want it to go up in value quickly and then dump it. If you are planning on holding for a period of time, say 10 years, you will need to factor in dividends. I think I need to explain the importance.

So you acquire a mutual fund back in the day and it has a NAV (Net Asset Value) of say 16.50.
10 years later you go to sell and it has a NAV of 20.50. The value went up right? On the other you are comparing with one that started at 23.50 and ended at 24.15. The second fund went up almost nothing.
So the first is the better fund? Not necessarily.

By straight percentage increase the first fund is better.... until you factor in the dividend.
I originally tried to compare funds by the simple annual increase/decrease. Seemed to work though I knew the final amount of the investment was not exactly accurate. I imagined it would be off by a couple thousand dollars depending on the data. As with any stock or mutual fund you acquire a certain number of shares with your initial investment. After a time you sell those shares hoping they have gone up in value. But, what about a big stable, slow growing company like GE, GM, IBM etc. You don't expect their value to change all that much, so why hold that stock for 5, 10 or 20 years? It's because these stocks pay a dividend. They share their profits with you the owner of the company.

So if you have the reinvestment option turned on you acquire additional shares every time they pay dividends. Each consequent payment of dividends increases your number of shares. So you might have a very high final value of your investment if you have been able to increase the number of shares significantly. The share price may have not gone up much but, it the number of shares has doubled you have more then if you go up a lot with minimal change in the number of shares. Hopefully the principle is clear.

A stock or mutual fund that goes up only 5% but, doubles its shares will be worth more then the stock or mutual fund that goes up 20% but has not change in the number of shares.

So as I mentioned earlier, I had to throw out method of calculating only via the percentage change in a stock year to year over a 10 year period. It just was not accurate.
I realized I needed the start price (NAV), end price and the price at each instance they paid a dividend since I'm assuming there is dividend reinvestment.
That way I could figure out how much my number of shares changes over time.

http://dividendmonk.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/reinvest_dividends.png

Take the following mutual funds - OSMAX and ODMAX.
Both funds from Oppenheimer with an emerging markets or international flavor. Both are on their list of best overall. So which would be better?
I generally start by checking out the provided rate of return - 1 yr. 5 yr. 10 yr. lifetime etc.
Then I check for any dividends. if the rate of return is ok but no dividend forget it. Remember I'm in it for the long haul not the short term.

On the face of it ... either could be good. ODMAX even though it has a change in NAV which is smaller then OSMAX he does have some large dividends. You have to dig into the numbers or create the calculation to find out who will have the larger final value. Turns out the high dividend payments don't secure the deal. There is a difference of about $3,000 when all is figured out.
Though ODMAX only had a change of 29% compared to 95% for OSMAX.
Dividends do make a big difference..... the smaller change was offset by a couple of large dividends.

See the chart below and notice how the number of shares becomes important.

Programmed by Mark-David McCool

Want a copy of the program? Just let me know via a comment..... I'll gladly share so you too can have a half a chance of picking a better stock or mutual fund. Remember though we never can predict when a correction or dip is going to come along. This just gives you a chance to get a better fund based on past performance.........

You need this information if you are not lucky enough to have tapped into The Dirty Little Secret.

Buaidh - NO - Bas

The Divine Institution of Marriage

2015-06-29T07:16:00.000-07:00

The following is a repost. I take no credit for writing any of this material. To view the original post please click here The Divine Institution of Marriage

The Divine Institution of Marriage

Introduction
In 1995, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints published “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” which declares the following truths about marriage:

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. . . .

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.[1]

Since the publication of that statement, there have been many challenges to the institution of marriage. Prominent among these challenges has been the recognition by several national governments and some states and provinces that same-sex marriage—formal unions between two individuals of the same gender—are the equivalent of traditional marriage. Yet God’s purposes for establishing marriage have not changed. One purpose of this document is to reaffirm the Church’s declaration that marriage is the lawful union of a man and a woman.
Another purpose is to reaffirm that the Church has a single, undeviating standard of sexual morality: intimate relations are acceptable to God only between a husband and a wife who are united in the bonds of matrimony.
A third purpose is to set forth the Church’s reasons for defending marriage between a man and a woman as an issue of moral imperative. The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage derives from its doctrine and teachings, as well as from its concern about the consequences of same-sex marriage on religious freedom, society, families, and children.
A fourth purpose of this document is to reaffirm that Church members should address the issue of same-sex marriage with respect and civility and should treat all people with love and humanity.
The Vital Importance of Marriage
Marriage is sacred and was ordained of God from before the foundation of the world. Jesus Christ affirmed the divine origins of marriage: “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?”[2]
From the beginning, the sacred nature of marriage was closely linked to the power of procreation. After creating Adam and Eve, God commanded them to “be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,”[3] and they brought forth children, forming the first family. Only a man and a woman together have the natural biological capacity to conceive children. This power of procreation—to create life and bring God’s spirit children into the world—is divinely given. Misuse of this power undermines the institution of the family.[4]
For millennia, strong families have served as the fundamental institution for transmitting to future generations the moral strengths, traditions, and values that sustain civilization. In 1948, the world’s nations issued the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, affirming that “the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society.”[5]
Marriage is far more than a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage is a vital institution for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults. Throughout the ages, governments of all types have recognized marriage as essential in preserving social stability and perpetuating life. Regardless of whether marriages were performed as a religious rite or a civil ceremony, in almost every culture marriage has been protected and endorsed by governments primarily to preserve and foster the institution most central to rearing children and teaching them the moral values that undergird civilization.
It is true that some couples who marry will not have children, either by choice or because of infertility. The special status granted marriage is nevertheless closely linked to the inherent powers and responsibilities of procreation and to the innate differences between the genders. By contrast, same-sex marriage is an institution no longer linked to gender—to the biological realities and complementary natures of male and female. Its effect is to decouple marriage from its central role in creating life, nurturing time-honored values, and fostering family bonds across generations.
In recent decades, high rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births have resulted in an exceptionally large number of single parents. Many of these single parents have raised exemplary children. Extensive studies have shown, however, that a husband and wife who are united in a loving, committed marriage generally provide the ideal environment for protecting, nurturing, and raising children.[6] This is in part because of the differing qualities and strengths that husbands and wives bring to the task by virtue of their gender. As an eminent academic on family life has written:

The burden of social science evidence supports the idea that gender differentiated parenting is important for human development and that the contribution of fathers to child rearing is unique and irreplaceable. . . . The complementarity of male and female parenting styles is striking and of enormous importance to a child’s overall development.[7]

In view of the close links that have long existed between marriage, procreation, gender, and parenting, same-sex marriage cannot be regarded simply as the granting of a new “right.” It is a far-reaching redefinition of the very nature of marriage itself. It marks a fundamental change in the institution of marriage in ways that are contrary to God’s purposes for His children and detrimental to the long-term interests of society.
Threats to Marriage and Family
Our modern era has seen traditional marriage and family—defined as a husband and wife with children in an intact marriage—come increasingly under assault, with deleterious consequences. In 2012, 40% of all births in the United States were to unwed mothers.[8] More than 50% of births to mothers under age 30 were out of wedlock. Further, the marriage rate has been declining since the 1980s. These trends do not bode well for the development of the rising generation.
A wide range of social ills has contributed to this weakening of marriage and family. These include divorce, cohabitation, non-marital childbearing, pornography, the erosion of fidelity in marriage, abortion, the strains of unemployment and poverty, and many other social phenomena. The Church has a long history of speaking out on these issues and seeking to minister to our members with regard to them. The focus of this document on same-sex marriage is not intended to minimize these long-standing issues.
More recently, the movement to promote same-sex marriage as an inherent or constitutional right has gained notable ground in recent years. Court rulings, legislative actions, and referenda have legalized same-sex marriage in a number of nations, states, and jurisdictions. In response, societal and religious leaders of many persuasions and faiths have made the case that redefining marriage in this way will further weaken the institution over time, resulting in negative consequences for both adults and children.[9]
A large number of people around the world recognize the crucial role that traditional marriage has played and must continue to play if children and families are to be protected and moral values propagated. Because the issue of same-sex marriage strikes at the very heart of the family and has the potential for great impact upon the welfare of children, the Church unequivocally affirms that marriage should remain the lawful union of a man and a woman.
Unchanging Standards of Morality
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that God has established clear standards of morality for His children, who are accountable before Him for their behavior. Such standards cannot be changed by the reasoning, emotions, personal interests, or opinions of mortal beings.[10] Without the higher authority of God, as revealed in scripture and by His prophets, secular society will flounder and drift.
Many advocates of same-sex marriage argue that traditional standards of sexual morality have changed and that “tolerance” requires that these new standards be recognized and codified in law. If tolerance is defined as showing kindness for others and respect for differing viewpoints, it is an important value in all democratic societies. But as Elder Dallin H. Oaks has observed, “Tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination.”[11]
The Savior taught that we should love the sinner without condoning the sin. In the case of the woman taken in adultery, He treated her kindly but exhorted her to “sin no more.”[12] His example manifested the highest love possible.
In addition to using the argument of tolerance to advocate redefining marriage, proponents have advanced the argument of “equality before the law.” No mortal law, however, can override or nullify the moral standards established by God. Nor can the laws of men change the natural, innate differences between the genders or deny the close biological and social link between procreation and marriage.
How Would Same-Sex Marriage Affect Religious Freedom?
As governments have legalized same-sex marriage as a civil right, they have also enforced a wide variety of other policies to ensure there is no discrimination against same-sex couples. These policies have placed serious burdens on individual conscience and on religious organizations.[13]
Same-sex marriage and anti-discrimination laws have already spawned legal collisions with the rights of free speech and of action based on religious beliefs. For example, advocates and government officials in certain states have challenged the long-held right of religious adoption agencies to follow their religious beliefs and place children only in homes with both a mother and a father. As a result, Catholic Charities in several states was forced to give up its adoption services rather than be forced to place children with same-sex couples.[14]
In the United States, the First Amendment right of free exercise of religion is coming under pressure from proponents of same-sex marriage. Some of these proponents advocate that tax exemptions and benefits should be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not accept such marriages.[15] The First Amendment may protect clergy from being forced to perform same-sex marriages, but other people of faith have faced and likely will continue to face legal pressures and sanctions. The same will happen with religiously affiliated institutions and educational systems. For example, a Georgia counselor contracted by the Centers for Disease Control was fired after an investigation into her decision to refer someone in a same-sex relationship to another counselor. In New Jersey, a ministry lost its tax-exempt status for denying a lesbian couple the use of its pavilion for their wedding. New Mexico’s Human Rights Commission prosecuted a commercial photographer for refusing to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony. When public schools in Massachusetts began teaching students about same-sex civil marriage, a Court of Appeals ruled that parents had no right to exempt their students.^{^[16]}
Similar limitations on religious freedom have already become the social and legal reality in several European nations, and the European Parliament has recommended that laws protecting the status of same-sex couples be made uniform across the European Union.[17] Where same-sex marriage becomes a recognized civil right, it inevitably conflicts with the rights of believers, and religious freedom is diminished.
How Would Same-Sex Marriage Affect Society?
The possible diminishing of religious freedom is not the only societal implication of legalizing same-sex marriage. Perhaps the most common argument that proponents of same-sex marriage make is that it is essentially harmless and will not affect the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage in any way. “It won’t affect your marriage, so why should you care?” is the common refrain. While it may be true that allowing same-sex marriage will not immediately and directly affect existing marriages, the real question is how it will affect society as a whole over time, including the rising generation and future generations.
In addition to undermining and diluting the sacred nature of marriage, legalizing same-sex marriage brings many practical implications in the sphere of public policy that will be of concern to parents and society.[18] When a government legalizes same-sex marriage as a civil right, it will almost certainly enforce a wide variety of other policies to enforce this. The implications of these policies are critical to understanding the seriousness of condoning same-sex marriage.
The all-important question of public policy must be: what environment is best for the child and for the rising generation? While some same-sex couples will obtain guardianship over children, traditional marriage provides the most solid and well-established social identity for children.[19] It increases the likelihood that they will be able to form a clear gender identity, with sexuality closely linked to both love and procreation. By contrast, the legal recognition of same-sex marriage may, over time, erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children. No dialogue on this issue can be complete without taking into account the long-term consequences for children.
As one example of how children will be adversely affected, the establishment of same-sex marriage as a civil right will inevitably entail changes in school curricula. When the state says that same-sex marriages are equivalent to heterosexual marriages, public school administrators will feel obligated to support this claim.[20] This has already happened in many jurisdictions, where from elementary school through high school, children are taught that marriage can be defined as a legal union between two adults of any gender, that the definition of family is fluid, and in some cases that consensual sexual relations are morally neutral.[21] In addition, in many areas, schools are not required to notify parents of this curriculum or to give families the opportunity to opt out.[22] These developments are already causing clashes between the agenda of secular school systems and the right of parents to teach their children deeply held standards of morality.
Throughout history, the family has served as an essential bulwark of individual liberty. The walls of a home provide a defense against detrimental social influences and the sometimes overreaching powers of government. In the absence of abuse or neglect, government does not have the right to intervene in the rearing and moral education of children in the home. Strong, independent families are vital for political and religious freedom.
Civility and Kindness
The Church acknowledges that same-sex marriage and the issues surrounding it can be divisive and hurtful. As Church members strive to protect marriage between a man and a woman, they should show respect, civility, and kindness toward others who have different points of view.
The Church has advocated for legal protection for same-sex couples regarding “hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.”[23] In Salt Lake City, for example, the Church supported ordinances to protect gay residents from discrimination in housing and employment.[24]
The Church’s affirmation of marriage as being between a man and a woman “neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians.”[25] Church members are to treat all people with love and humanity. They may express genuine love and kindness toward a gay or lesbian family member, friend, or other person without condoning any redefinition of marriage.
Conclusion
Strong, stable families, headed by a father and mother, are the anchor of society. When marriage is undermined by gender confusion and by distortions of its God-given meaning, the rising generation of children and youth will find it increasingly difficult to develop their natural identities as men or women. Some will find it more difficult to engage in wholesome courtships, form stable marriages, and raise another generation imbued with moral strength and purpose.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, along with many other churches, organizations, and individuals, will continue to defend the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, because it is a compelling moral issue of profound importance to our religion and to the future of society.
The final words in the Church’s proclamation on the family are an admonition to the world from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles: “We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.”[26]
This document is a revised and updated version of “The Divine Institution of Marriage,” first published by the Church in 2008 (.pdf file).
References

[1] “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” Ensign, Nov. 1995, 102.

[2] Matthew 19:4–5.

[3] Genesis 1:28.

[4] See M. Russell Ballard, “What Matters Most Is What Lasts Longest,” Ensign, Nov. 2005, 41–44.

[5] United Nations, “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III), Dec. 10, 1948.

[6] David Blankenhorn, Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem (New York: Basic Books, 1995); Maggie Gallagher and Joshua K. Baker, “Do Moms and Dads Matter? Evidence from the Social Sciences on Family Structure and the Best Interests of the Child,” Margins Law Journal 4:161 (2004); Mark Regnerus, “How Different Are the Adult Children of Parents Who Have Same-Sex Relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study,” Social Science Research 41:4 (July 2012): 752–70; Regnerus, “Parental Same-Sex Relationships, Family Instability, and Subsequent Life Outcomes for Adult Children: Answering the Critics of the New Family Structures Study with Additional Analyses,” Social Science Research 41:6 (Nov. 2012): 1367–77; W. B. Wilcox, J. R. Anderson, W. Doherty, et al., Why Marriage Matters, Third Edition: Thirty Conclusions from the Social Sciences (New York: Institute for American Values and National Marriage Project, 2011); M. E. Scott, L. F. DeRose, L. H. Lippman, and E. Cook, Two, One, or No Parents? Children’s Living Arrangements and Educational Outcomes around the World (Washington, D.C.: Child Trends, 2013; worldfamilymap.org/2013/articles/essay/two-one-or-no-parents); Andrew J. Cherlin, The Marriage-Go-Round: The State of Marriage and the Family in America Today (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2009).

[7] David Popenoe, Life Without Father (New York: The Free Press, 1996), 146.

[8] See J. A. Martin, B. E. Hamilton, M. J. K. Osterman, et al. Births: Final Data for 2012. National Vital Statistics Reports; vol. 62, no. 9 (Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, 2013).

[9] See Sherif Girgis, “Check Your Blind Spot: What Is Marriage?” Marriage, Feb. 15, 2013; thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/02/7942/; Lynn Wardle, “The Attack on Marriage as the Union of a Man and a Woman,” North Dakota Law Review, vol. 83 (June 2008): 1364–92; David Blankenhorn, The Future of Marriage (2007); Lynn Wardle, ed., What’s the Harm? Does Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Really Harm Individuals, Families, or Society? (2008); R.R. Reno, “The Future of Marriage,” First Things, Jan. 2013, 3–4; Richard Neuhaus, “Disingenuousness and Clarity,” On the Square, May 30, 2008; firstthings.com/onthesquare/2008/05/disingenuousness-and-clarity.

[10] See Dallin H. Oaks, “No Other Gods,” Ensign, Nov. 2013, 72–75.

[11] Dallin H. Oaks, “Weightier Matters,” Ensign, Jan. 2001, 17.

[12] John 8:11.

[13] See Douglas Laycock, Anthony R. Picarello Jr., and Robin F. Wilson, eds., Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty, Emerging Conflicts (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield, 2008).

[14] See usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/fortnight-for-freedom/upload/Catholic-Adoption-Services.pdf

[15] See Jonathan Turley, “An Unholy Union: Same-Sex Marriage and the Use of Governmental Programs to Penalize Religious Groups with Unpopular Practices,” in Laycock, Picarello, and Wilson, eds., Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts, 59–76.

[16] Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson, and Robert P. George, What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense (New York and London: Encounter Books, 2012), 62–64.

[17] See Roger Trigg, Equality, Freedom, and Religion (London and New York: Oxford University Press, 2012); The Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe, Report 2012 (Vienna, Austria, 2013); “European Parliament Resolution on Homophobia in Europe,” adopted Jan. 18, 2006.

[18] See Girgis, Anderson, and George, What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense.

[19] See endnote 6.

[20] Charles Russo, “Same-Sex Marriage and Public School Curricula: Preserving Parental Rights to Direct the Education of Their Children,” University of Dayton Law Review, vol. 32 (Spring 2007): 361–84.

[21] Gerry Shih, “Clashes Pit Parents vs. Gay-Friendly Curriculums in Schools,” The New York Times, Mar. 3, 2011, page A21A; John Smoot, “Children Need Our Marriage Tradition,” Public Discourse, June 13, 2013; thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/06/10344/; Challenging Homophobia and Heterosexism: A K-12 Curriculum Resource Guide, Toronto District School Board (2011).

[22] Parker v. Hurley, 514 F. 3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008); Fields v. Palmdale School District, 427 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir. 2005).

[23] mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-to-same-sex-marriage-votes.

[24] See mormonnewsroom.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/statement-given-to-salt-lake-city-council-on-nondiscrimination-ordinances.

[25] mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-to-same-sex-marriage-votes.

[26] “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” 102.

The Debt Snowball - Getting out of Debt Faster!

2015-06-16T14:03:00.000-07:00

You may have heard of it. The debt snowball. NO it is not the snowball of debt you build up when you have to pay a ton of interest to the bank, credit card or finance company.

The debt snowball is the method that you can get your debt under control and begin to have your money work for you and not the person you are paying.
It is basic in theory and maybe hard to implement. Especially if you have come to rely on credit cards. For this to work properly you really need to get to the point that you are paying for things in cash, and saving up for purchases using a sink fund (see my post on the topic - Pay Yourself First Some Thoughts on Finances ). You'll see how using this method in conjunction with the snowball method will not just save you money but, make you money!

The steps to the debt snowball debt - crazyrunninggirl.com

The snowball method basically require you to determine all your debts - student loans, credit cards, mortgage, car loan, etc.
You then take these debts and order them by the balance amount. The amounts should be smallest to largest. Then you do everything you can to pay off the smallest amount first. All other debt you only pay the minimum. What happens here is that you get to the point of consolidation. You'll end up having less debt fairly quickly especially if you have several smaller balances.

Think if you try and pay off that credit card with just a little extra every month, say $5 thinking your doing some good. Now if you have 3 cards with a balance and an auto loan and house payment and a smallish student loan. That would amount to say $30 extra every month. Now that helps a bit but not much. If that $30 is combined and applied to one balance only it will be more helpful and get better results sooner. How as you get rid of a balance you also get rid of the interest on that balance. That savings together with the small combined amount of extra can then be applied to the next and the results begin to grow with time. This is why it is called a snowball.

There is an alternate method where you pick which debt to start with by the interest rate. That might be a credit card.... not like the mortgage or student loan. This can work also and due to this is called an avalanche. See the comparison in the chart below.

Basically you get quick results with the snowball method compared to the avalanche. This can help to keep someone motivated especially if they have a lot of debt. it can help also since you have fewer balances out there and seem to be making head way. Which is best? You'll have to decide. Dave Ramsey recommends the snowball.

I think that would also be the best. With fewer balances you are doing less juggling and will soon regain your sanity. You might feel tempted to do a consolidation loan. He mentions that it is just kicking the can down the road. You have to remove your debt sources as well if this is to work in any form. That means cutting the credit cards etc.

Either way concentration on removing debt with all you can muster is far better then throwing a little extra at each one of your balances.......

Buiadh - NO - Bas

---

Total Money Make Over and 3rd World Countries

2015-06-08T15:19:00.002-07:00

I've been reading the book The The Total Money Makeover: Classic Edition: A Proven Plan for Financial Fitness by Dave Ramsey recently. It sure has been an eye opener in a variety of areas.
I did suspect many of the "myths" but, then I got to thinking.

I came up with an idea that IMF acting like a credit card or line of credit to 3rd world countries is hampering their ability to build wealth.

As Dave puts it... as long as you are owing money to someone else, living beyond your means, doing the "90 days same as cash" etc you'll never get ahead. You see he proffers and I think he is right..... if you carry a balance... just a little over every month you will eventually be owing a chunk of interest... that interest is no going to your pocket but, theirs. Thus slowly you erode your opportunity for wealth.

So if the 3rd world countries would pay as they go..... kept to their budget they'd build wealth. So instead of getting money from the IMF (in our case it would be the local lending institute) it actually saved up for projects it would come out ahead. Think if they are borrowing 25 billion at 5% for some dam project. You might think the amount is small and the interest spread out over 30 years would be low. However, they could save the interest payments if they took just a couple of years to save up the 25 billion. In most cases the total amount of payments will be about double the amount borrowed. So depending a little up front sacrifice will bring long term advantages.
For this example on this 25 billion dollar loan there would be payments of about 1.34 billion monthly over the 30 years. So in reality they would need to wait about 2 or 3 years and would have the total they need for the project. Granted the payments are based on the fact they have a certain amount of upfront money in say the neighborhood of 5 billion. so they likely need about 30 billion total for the project. So three years would do it to save if the 1.34 billion payment amount were used.

Think of that 3 years of waiting to basically save 20-30 billion. They would by waiting have two projects in less time then it would have been to pay off the first one by taking the loan.

I discussed the concept of a stink fund in a prior post - Pay Yourself First - some thoughts on personal finance

If countries would us this method they could have some real GDP growth, as they potentially would have double the money in the long haul.

So there is my 2¢ worth of thoughts.
Applying the total money makeover could do wonders not only for average household in the USA, but, those in other countries and for the governments of those countries.

Buaidh - NO - Bas

Budgeting and getting your finances under control

2015-05-22T12:10:00.000-07:00

I've been reading lately several books by Dave Ramsey.
What I've noticed is that if you have a budget you'll be able to get your finances under control and you will also be telling your money where you want it to go and making it work for you.

So what is a budget?

As I understand it a budget consists of what you have to spend and then the allocations on what you want to spend it on. Seems fairly simple right? It basically is though many people including myself are not very good at doing a budget.

Now they mention that if you do a budget you will seem to have gotten a raise. How could that happen? Well it appears that as you preallocate your money you gain more control over said money.
You learn or set limits on what you want or are willing to spend your money on. Then if you do the all cash purchase system you find you really do have more control of your money.

Budgeting works best with cash or check and not credit cards. Why? The tendency with a credit card is to purchase and forget about it. You don't see the money leave your hand so you don't feel the potential pain right away. So if you have $60 for food allocated that week and your working with cash you can't really buy $65 in food... you won't have the money at the check out. Might now be the same if your using a credit card. Now the Debit card acts like a credit card but, the money comes straight out of your account. You can't go over unless you have overdraft protection. Risk here is how that is handled. A person here at works said she kept getting hit with a fee if she tried using her debit card with nothing in the account. I would have run from that bank in a heart beat. I had a bank charging a fee for not having enough movement on the account. I was well above any typical minimum of $200-$500. Got hit with the fee one to many times and then moved my money to a credit union. Good old banks for you.

So what goes into a budget? It is not simply tracking what you spend. That is a start since you can see what you spend the most money on. But, a budget is really much more then figuring out what you are spending your money on.
A budget is really telling your money where you want it to go. A budget is figuring out your needs, want, and how much you have. Then you decide where your money needs to go, how much you have left over and how much you can use now, how much you can save for a bigger purchase in the future etc. Ultimately, if you plan right you will not over spend and can plan to pay cash for things. You'll get stuck with little or no interest and that lack of interest coming out of your pocket will be the ultimate wealth builder.

So let us work on a sample budget. The best idea is a zero sum budget. That means that everything is allocated .... even savings or payments as savings for things like a car.

OK so let's get somethings down here and do a sample. I'm going to keep things simple with this monthly budget.

Monthly Budget
Income	+$3,000
Rent	-$1300
Food	-$550
Utilities	-$150
Entertainment	-$75
Gas / Auto	-$150
Savings	-$675
Misc	-$100
Total Unallocated	0

As you see there is a specific line item for savings. That can be actual money set aside for an emergency fund or you can line item it as if it was a car payment. Then as you have built things up you can go and pay cash for the vehicle instead of financing. Think of the savings over time. Think of 4 years of payments at 5% interest. Per bankrate.com and their calculator if the car is 15,000 you will have paid about $1,580 in interest. That works out to be about $33 on your ~$345 monthly payment. The idea here is that if you pay cash you can put more money back in your pocket. It also requires that you make a wise choice on how much to spend on a vehicle. Doubling the amount of the car to 30k gets you a double payment. Thus ~3k in interest. So the more you can pay up front the more you have in your pocket. Think of the ability to pay cash for your car, and then save up what would be a car payment. You have the car paid for in full by the time you need a new. That is if you stay practical on how much you can afford. Avoiding getting too much car and this principle works wonderfully. check out the calculator here.

In a previous post I talked about a sink fund.
Pay Yourself First - some thoughts on personal finance
It's the same idea. You pay yourself the amount you'd end up putting on your credit card. Then you go and pay cash for the item. Saving 15%-23% in interest. You might think a few bucks in interest on a low cost item is nothing. How about when you do that a few too many times? The interest can start adding up. I'm doing it currently for a Blu-ray player. I'm putting aside $5 a week. I'll have enough by the time Christmas comes around. I'll also be able to take advantage of specials etc.

The bottom line is if you can tell your money where you want it to go you can come out ahead. You'll actually appear to have more money because you stick to a budget and your defined limits.

So what are some of the recommended limits or percentages for a budget.
I found a reasonable chart from the Michigan credit counseling association
http://www.michigancounselingassociation.com/uploads/2/6/3/4/2634297/budget__financial_education.pdf
There definately is no hard can fast rule on all numbers. For example housing is labeled as between 25-35%. Food goes from 5-15%. See a large variation in the values. If one area is higher (housing is really expensive in California compared to Iowa) you then have to reduce another. But, don't be such a nickle and dimer that you don't have any fun in the middle of everything. You'll just have to find cheaper methods if you have a lot of debt your trying to get out of. We use the library weekly for movies and more. Pay only a few fines here and there...... saves on having Netflix, or cable. Allows us to put that money to other categories.

I'd like to hear some of your budgeting ideas. Things that work, things that have not, any ideas you have used to stay out of debt.
So the best thing I can say is get to work... and just do it.

Additional resources:
One for the Money
One for the Money - Low cost booklet on Finances
Dave Ramsey Budgeting forms
How to Budget - 50/20/30 Principle

Buaidh - NO - Bas

Plastic Bag Ban Revisited

2015-04-27T10:33:00.000-07:00

I'd like to revisit the plastic bag ban. I wrote about it in the past in my post
Plastic Bag Ban back in January of 2014.

We'll things definitely have changed. Changed in a big way. Several current members of the Huntington Beach City council got elected with the select purpose of repealing the bag ban.
And they did repeal the ban in Huntington Beach.

Here are a few of the articles out there on the subject

Huntington Beach City Council moves to repeal plastic bag ban
‘Surf City’ First in Nation to Repeal Plastic Bag Ban
Medzerian: Repeal of plastic bag ban is a step backward

All these article bring up many of the same arguments I mentioned in brought up previously.
Some argued the tax angle (10¢ for paper bag), others the fact the bag were being used multiple time (pick up dog poop, trash can liners), others the benefits of less in the ocean etc.

In reality you can find a way to make each and every one of these arguments work.
But, you have to way the advantages verses the disadvantages; the pros and cons.
It looks like the city of Huntington Beach through their elected representatives decided that the cons out weighed the pros when it comes to banning plastic bags.
I got that mostly the Mayor and council feel that choice was missing. People were being forced and the benefits were slim on the long haul. It's one thing to ban the bag and say "we are doing this for an environmental reason" but, to go and say and by the way you have to pay to use what we deem the "environmentally friendly option".
Think of that..... we banned lead in paint, and gasoline. Did we got out and say you will not have to pay a fee or tax to use the new more environmentally friendly paint or gas? We did not. People took their lumps and did accepted the fact things had to change. Not so with the plastic bags.
Too many arguments were available that refuted the "banners" claims. Thus with flimsy proof, minimal scientific research and the like people just did not buy the need for a ban.

If the people that feel this ban is good for society they did not go about it in the right way. They did not use a convincing enough argument to one side or the other. They also decided or needed the "Tax" (pay for bag if you don't have one) as necessary to get the super markets on board.
Remember that only stores selling food had to abide with the ban. The local Home Depot or Joann craft store did not have to restrict the plastic bag. So also it was fairly short sided.....
Pull part of the bags out of the system and expect things to get better. It's like changing only the oil and not the transmission fluid. You solve part of your maintenance needs but, not all.

If your going to effect a change you have to remove all the bag from the system. Removing 20%-40% does not cut it. I brought this up last time. Cut, the bag and force people to by new ones.
Here is some of that shortsightedness.
"You’d think I’d asked readers to sacrifice their firstborn. The responses were varied but shared a similar tone, from folks who wondered how they were supposed to pick up their dog’s poop (uh, buy little poop bags?), to shoppers who went out of their way to avoid cities with a bag ban, to the general “you are an idiot.”
Medzerian: Repeal of plastic bag ban is a step backward

See what I means? The Bags for dog poop don't go away we just have to pay for them now, instead of reusing the ones you had from the supermarket that brought home your groceries. And how about the trash can liners? You get forced to by the ones at the store that are in most cases thicker and will decompose slower at the land fill. Do we win?

So I go back to my original premise. Is the plastic bag ban really the way to fix the problem that is presented? That we need to clean up the effects on the environment from all our modern living.

Unfortunately, I can not say that what has been presented and implemented is the solution. I believe it is far from a good solution. With some changes and such it might become a viable solution but, until then I can't go along with a Plastic Bag Ban in any city or the state of California.

Buiadh - No - Bas

Pay Yourself First - some thoughts on personal finance

2015-04-17T11:32:00.000-07:00

I'm getting towards the end of the book by Dave Ramsey entitled "Financial Peace Revisited".

In this he brings up the concept of "paying yourself" first. The idea that you need to make sure you set aside something on a regular basis for yourself. You have your regular bills and the like but, if you don't do something for you as a line item you will never get ahead.

The basic idea here is that if you can pay for things in cash and not credit (with the associated 10%+ interest rate) you come out ahead. And how do you get to the point you can pay for things with CASH?
First you have to control you spending and have the patience to hold off on bigger purchases and look for bargains and the like. By saving up the money for the purchase over a few weeks or months you develop the ability to look for a bargain and have most if not all the money to pay up front. That way you save all the interest charges.

So what does this have to do with "paying yourself" first? If you develop in a budget a line item where you set something aside it's like your paying yourself. You have become like the electric or gas bill. You might not be able to do much in the short term if you are saddled with a lot of credit card debt.
By moving to a system where you pay with cash where possible (might not make sense on some larger purchases), you save so much in interest in the long run.

The basic idea is if you can wait say 8 weeks and save the money needed to purchase the $200 item instead of buy on credit you will save a lot of money in the long haul. The difference can be $20-$30 over the 8 weeks. If you finance your purchase and let's assume you don't pay it all off at the end of the month so you have a portion accruing interest @ 18% (a relatively common average).
so let's take that $200 purchase and only make a minimum payment of say $50 to keep things simple, the next month you have $150 to payoff and the 18% interest begins. That works to about $14 in interest over several months if you just make minimum payments of say $15 each month. It would be less for a minimum of say $40 or $50 getting it down to say $5 or $6 in interest.

Now for an amount like this you say $15 is not all that much. If you are putting just about everything on the card the interest begins to build as you can afford to only make the minimum payment.
Remember the unfortunate part is that the interest you pay is on the interest as well....... bad in the long haul..... avoid it if at all possible. I repeat avoid it at all possible.

Check out the chart below that navigates when it is good to use cash verses credit. Per people like Dave Ramsey you should be cutting up your credit cards and going cash. If you pay yourself first you won't need to use credit..... most of the time.


Cash vs. Credit Info-Graphic Chart		http://www.businessinsider.com/credit-debit-or-cash-2014-9

Now if you plan ahead and have some emergency funds you'll be able to go towards cash only payments. Pros and Cons of carrying cash - Dave Ramsey

There is peace and security when you can do you payments in cash. You will spend less, have more control over things and pay a heck of a lot less in interest. Have you heard of the deals where they give you 90 days or 6 months same as cash?   They are banking on the fact you will not pay off the amount in the 90 days or 6 months. The interest from day one then is piled on.
Recently had to have a bunch of dental work done. Well over $1,000 in all. Well they are offering 18 months same as cash. So I have till October 2016 to pay off the amount.   Now on the bill they have a minimum payment of ~$43. Factoring that out over the 18 months it comes to only $775. See the deception? Pay only the minimum and you come up far short. So the new amount at the end of the 18 months includes the interest accrued from the beginning. Hundreds of dollars just got added on to your total. All at once since they don't have to have a minimum that will actually get you to the end of the promotional period with the total paid off. Sly and tricky huh?

You can figure out interest payment by going to the following site by Bankrate.com
Interest payments - credit cards - BankRate.com

Bottom line I have to be careful and not get sucked into paying only the minimum. So instead of the $43 I need to be paying the $73 to cover everything.

If you mess around with the numbers on the Bankrate page you can tell how much interest you will be paying over time. It's not pretty really. That is why you have to get into the habit of paying cash, controlling your spending, being patient, and "Paying yourself" such that you can take advantage of special deals, keep from paying interest, and have some funds in reserve.........

I got turned on to a system recently that is called a "Sink Fund". It is kind of like paying for the item in question ahead of time and thus avoiding interest. That said you might think that seems like something dumb on small purchases. Make no sense to save up to buy that Foreman Grill on sale at Kohl's department store. Maybe but, only if you have move set aside already. Sink funds are for items you kind of want down the road and can plan for. It might be the new dining room set, or the Blu-Ray player, Laptop, or Car. You figure a rough amount you need to save and then figure out when you need said item. That helps to figure your amount per week or month to save.

I for example want to have a new Blu-Ray player for Christmas. I have about 30 weeks to go till then. So if a typical Blu-Ray player is $120 dollars I'll need to save about $5 per week to meet my goal. That is assuming I'll be buying it just at Christmas and not after or during the Black Friday frenzy. Any way I will have to wait a little longer, but, with my current financial situation I save a ton in interest. I'll also be able to search out bargains, and other deals till then.
We did something similar about a year ago with our TV purchase. We did a lot of hunting, comparing and deciding. Finally, the deal that worked the best was just after the new year at Walmart. We though oh the deals around Black Friday will be good. All off brands, or something way out of our price range.   These are simple habits, that help you to "pay yourself" first.

Consider a sink fund, or automatic saving account deposits. I have some going to one of the "Online Banks" every month. It automatically, and it is forcing me to save some money. I hardly see or think of the amount since it is not so readily accessible.
You can do the same on your pay check. Have some of the money be deposited in your savings verses your checking, heck you can have multiple accounts. And how about your 401(k).
You should be having at least to the company match taken out. That includes free money, and with time and average earning of say 4-12% you will be surprised how much you can grow the account to by the time you retire. Even the few bucks 4% might constitute will create a large nest egg over 30-40 years. That is "paying yourself" so you are not eating Alpo in retirement.

Bottom line, if you want to get ahead you have to include yourself a your pay check allocations. Otherwise, you won't get anywhere and might just end up Bankrupt if your not careful.

Buiadh - NO - Bas

Bitcoin, Inflation, Deflation and Extraneous subjects

2015-03-16T11:45:00.002-07:00

I've seen a couple of posts about Bitcoin recently and one that even made the Linkin Pulse.
This got me to thinking. I could give my couple of cents worth of information and opinions on the subject and include deflation/inflation, money supply and the like too.

The article referenced above goes in to the idea of production and money supply. It talks about how creating money that is pumped into the supply can effect things. I naturally agree that when things become unbalanced you will have problems sooner then later.

We should all know about the simple principle of supply and demand from the economics classes we took back in high school or college. It's on most required classes lists for general education.

As the diagram shows as the demand for a product goes up the price has to go up if the supply does not match the increased demand. Conversely, as the supply raises with little or no change in the demand the price is going to have to go down (this can be seen as dumping product; more on this later).

http://www.english-online.at/economy/capitalism/capitalism-market-economy.htm

Basically the price is effected by the amount of demand and supply. The recent decline in gas prices can be seen as a good example of this in the real world. The supply of gas/oil continued to increase while the demand for the product (gas/oil) stayed more or less flat. With the glut on the market people begin to sell the product for less hoping to move their inventory quicker then the competition. This can create a price war, much as what happens at an auction when 2 people get into a bidding war.

Now you might ask why did I title this "Bitcoin, Inflation, Deflation and Extraneous subjects" if I'm talking a lot about supply and demand. It all plays together like one big merry-go-round.
You see nothing lives in a vacuum. When the price of gas and oil plummeted in some peoples views their outlook on the economy was effected. Also you have companies that have to decide if they can break even with the new prices going into effect. A $10-$20 drop in the price of oil might not rise to many eyebrows if the price is $150 a barrel. It sure turns heads if it is sitting around $50.

Planning, forecasting, and reality all help to influence the price over the long haul. It appears that as the price of oil stayed well above $100 per barrel, lots of people found it economical to get into the oil business and pump more oil (especially alternative forms and sources). This increases the supply, a natural reaction. Sometimes, depending on the industry you may have a lag of several years or maybe just days for that supply to increase. Agriculture is a prime example. You can put more land under cultivation, however, you have at least a year to see any results. Wheat is high so more is planted. Some time next year you might see some increase. Even longer if you have fruit trees that have to mature or live stock that have to reach adult size. It's not an over night fix. Little different with say water. You likely have someone that can bring some in from out of area. A day or two and your supply issue is effected.

Now we need to talk about modern economies and the money supply. As of right now we pay for things in a couple of ways. Most places will take some government backed paper money or coin. Many places in the modern age will also take an electronic payment or check relating to a bank or credit card company. Someone (financial institution) backs the transaction and they are backed by the government sponsored money on deposit. In some areas around the world (usually rural) people may still be doing barter. I'll give you my 12 eggs for say 9 cups of your wheat. There is a recognized value of the one good being traded for the other. People realize that a cow or pig has more value then a single egg due to the fact it takes more to produce one over the other.

We technically do the same thing every time we go to the store. If you have the exact same T-shirt available at say Target, Wal-Mart and Macy's and each charges a different prices where will you buy that shirt?   If Wal-Mart is cheaper you'd go there, unless you want to brag about how much you paid even if it is $5 more for the exact same thing. Some times the difference is not enough to make it worth our time to go out of our way for just one item.   We decide that the amount of money we spend is an acceptable value for what we are getting in return. If we don't think the value is acceptable for what they want to charge we don't buy. When we find out they are the only one in town with the item we need we then go pay the price or reevaluated if we need the item in the first place. Though others might get into the market seeing a profit can be made and over time effect the supply. As specified above the change maybe gradual or fairly quick.
Ever wonder why they have a clearance section? It's a bunch of items that people did not have enough interest in at the price attached. As the price is reduced more and more of the items are sold. The consumer begins to see value at the new price.

Paper or Plastic? Understanding Money (audio presentation on money)

Now let us begin talking about the money supply. Remember how I specified the Government backed paper or coins. Well what does that really mean. If your using US Dollars you have a piece of paper with an attached value, and the government is the one that prints the money or mints the coins. They have a recognized value by people around the world as having value per the good faith of the United States Government. The same holds true for locations like Brazil. The government is behind the real. Those colorful notes in all shades of the rainbow. They control the printing and destruction of old and new notes. John Doe is not involved in determining the total amounts of notes in circulation and the like.   For a period of time following the conversion of the Brazilian Cruzeiros Reais to the new Reais in the mid 1990's till around say 2005 each Real was backed by a US Dollar in the bank. If they had 25 Billion in circulation they had $25 billion US in the bank.   This provided confidence in the money. As of right now I don't think they have a 1 for 1 ratio of Dollars in the bank.
One way or the other the basis for most of the currency in the world today is in some form related to a government that is in charge of the creation of the money. Changes in government can at times have a major effect on the money. Very rarely is the money backed by anything more then good faith, let alone a commodity.
In the case of the Brazilian Real. What would have happened in 1996 if the US government was overthrown by some right wing extremist or an Islamic backed group.   The full faith and trust of the government no longer applies. Thus the value will decline in short order. Some people will stop accepting the "Money" and things will begin to go into disarray. This ripple throughout the world economy as various currencies are back by that of another admired or respected stable government.
Having an actual commodity backing the "Money" can help to retain perceived value.

In the past the most common method to back currency was Gold (or another precious metal). Gold has had a fairly stable value over time and is perceived as safe. However, it becomes hard to increase the money supply when you have to acquire some more gold to make more "Money".    Thus governments went on to create "Fiat Money". This is money that derives it value from governmental intervention, law etc.   Thus it is not money that has a commodity backing it. It is laissez faire money.... money that is just out there. People assign their own value or worth to it. It becomes just a common form of exchange. Not something you can go to the government and ask for your 9 oz of oil in exchange. They don't have a repository for exchange of that type; either at the local bank or governmental office. This can over time allow the government to manipulate the supply or quantity of money. They can simple create money where none previously existed by printing more.
It's easy to see how the government by overzealous intervention or printing of money can turn the "Money" into "toilet paper money" as Nick Jones calls it in his article Fiat Currency: Using the Past to See into the Future.   Sometimes the government simply prints more money to help cover expenses. This pumps money into the supply and then causes havoc in the long term. More money with no increase in supply or demand throws things out of balance. This tends to cause inflation. So the governments task their treasury department that prints the money to help make sure they don't over load the money supply so much that inflation gets out of control while at the same time spurring on growth.
Few people that were not born before 1970 will remember the hyper inflation that occurred around the end of the 70's in the United States. Things got really bad.
I was too small to remember the bad times here but, I saw things in Brazil where inflation was 300% or more per year before they changed over to the new currency.
When I first got there a 1.5 litter of Coca Cola cost 50 Cruzeiros Reais. 3 months later it was up to 150 for the same product. Talk about inflation. Unfortunately, some of that inflation was built in. People just got accustom to increasing prices. To counter this the conversion to the new money had a fixed rate that was broadcast for several month on the nightly news. A new set of values was set in the mind of the consumer and common citizen. We ran into a situation where a particular store was increasing the prices about 5% each week after the money conversion went into effect. We gave him some time as we assumed they were working out the new appropriate level to price things. However, after 1 month of consistent increases we stopped going there. The price increases were no long justified.

That leads us to the notion that as inflation sets in things get bad but, what about deflation.
Is it such a bad thing to have prices go down. Is it such a bad thing that the price of a gallon of milk goes down from $3.50 to say $3.00? I guess in the long term this would not be such a good thing.
If a whole sample of items in the economy were to go down together it would be less likely to effect things as much. Just the price of milk going down and everything going up is not good. Over time a free market will correct itself by the laws and principles of supply and demand.
Invariably governments get worried with deflation, not sure exactly why, though if deflation is sustained I guess you could get the depression that occurred in the 1930's. Eventually, this helped start World War II and all of the ramifications that came with it. I'm not saying deflation causes wars but, I guess policy makers see it as a primer to the pump of an already aggravated situation.

The worse part is the way central banks try to correct deflation - "
In a deflationary environment, local demand for goods and services is weak, and prices fall with spending and consumption.
Buying government bonds increases the amount of money circulating in the region. By keeping interest rates low, the ECB hopes to encourage spending and borrowing, instead of saving. Many central banks across the world have also cut rates in the last few months."

Thus the solution is to mess with the money supply. Instead of the market taking care of things and correcting as necessary.... the government or central bank does what they think best. But, is it always the best?

So where does the Bitcoin revolution come in? Imagine a form of currency that is not controlled by a central bank in some country. A currency that can't be created Willy Nilly. That the supplier does not or can not pump up the supply when ever they want. It's like having to transact in gold nuggets. Not some coin that over time might come to be just gold plated, but the actual pure product or commodity.
Only problem is how do you transact with a person in Japan when dealing with something like gold nuggets.   Only due to the Internet and our now globally interconnectedness can something like Bitcoin work. It's all digital. Technically, it is all in cyber space. They have no physical commodity at all. The difference is the lack of supply or the control on the supply.   The capping of total supply. Now realistically, to get the whole world on bit coin would not work. There is simply not enough in the supply to have that work all that well. Physical commodities have their limits but, it is a local limit. You have to exchange something for that wheat, or shirt and it is usually done in person.
So could bitcoin be the solution to inflation/deflation or at least the unintended manipulation of the money supply. I am firmly of the belief that most of the trouble we get into is from to much or to little intervention from the government. Take the recent housing bubble. The government was promoting giving loans to just about anyone..... they kind of told the bank to make it happen any which way possible. That lead to no verification of income, and other risky practices. Basically, because the central bank backed the bad loans they kept on coming. And what started the whole boom.... easy money after the dot com bust. The central bank dropped the interest rate to next to nothing.    That helped grease the wheels of commerce. Then as they saw things heating up a little to much they started to slowly raise the rate. 1/4 percent at a time. The guys on adjustable rate mortgage began to die. A little increase became painful and as this happened 1/4 percent per quarter or half percent per year the pain really set in. Many who had been told oh just refinance every couple of years could not do so as easily. So the sell motivator set in..... or in the long haul foreclosures as people attempted to survive paying at the new higher rate.

You see the consequences of messing with the money supply in the various ways the government does can be horrible. They don't come along very quickly at times. A year or two after something is started the consequences show. Also think of the "to big to fail" problem with the banks. The government say oh if these banks fail we are dust. Even though you helped feed the problem (with our support) we will bail you out.
Do you think many of those bank would have stopped asking for income verification if they had to hold all the risky loans in the bag? I am going to assume not. NO bank wants to take a large gamble and those sub-prime loans became hot potatoes..... they just knew in the back of their minds that some of the hot potatoes would be handled by the government..... so the risk was determined to be less the it really was. No decided to put the breaks on the process...... keep the water flowing, and then the blockage in the line came.   All hell broke loose.
So in this case a true laissez faire situation would have helped to limit the issues. I can't say for sure there would not have been a bit of a bubble or price run up if the banks all could have failed and no bail outs were in site.

You see the government made things a little too easy and greased the wheel with low interest rates, pumping of the supply and promotion of lack loan standards. Several years later things over heated and blew up. This type of things have happened in the past. It's happening right now to some level. Maybe not in the loan standards (some are jumping through ridiculous hoops).

One over reaction is followed by another over reaction in the other direction. So if you can cut out the manipulation of the money supply by something like bitcoin. Governments are concerned with things like bitcoin and other cyber or virtual currencies.
"No one knows what will become of bitcoin. It is mostly unregulated, but that could change. Governments are concerned about taxation and their lack of control over the currency."
What is Bitcoin? - CNN Money

That's the part I am worried about. The lack of control the governments worry about is what might make bitcoins so wonderful. It might promote things like money laundering and other illegal activities. It does help cut out the "Middle-Man", the manipulators. I'm not sure how much this will effect the over global economy in say 30 years.   Will this cause some revolution? Hard to say.
It will cause people to look at their options and hopefully, cause governments to control more their "Fiat Currency".

Buiadh - NO - Bas

Enduring to the end

2015-02-09T13:26:00.000-08:00

So yesterday we had a very good discussion on agency. That lesson moved in enduring to the end.

I'd like to comment on this topic today.

You probably have heard the phrase - "Endure to the end". This phrase is contained in at least a half dozen scriptures.

3 Nephi 15:9, 2 Nephi 31:16, D&C 14:7, D&C 18:22, Mark 13:13

to list just a few.

The topic is all over the place and there is even an article from 1993 on the subject.

So what does this really mean? What does enduring to the end really mean?

Per the guide to the scriptures: To remain firm in a commitment to be true to the commandments of God despite temptation, opposition, and adversity.

This phrase is usually tied to being saved, lifted up at the last days, receive the promise or obtain eternal life.

The key element is the last one - Eternal Life. We are promised that we can obtain eternal life if we hold out to the end while we are faithful to the commandments of God.

If ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, ye shall have eternal life:2 Ne. 31:20; ( 3 Ne. 15:9; D&C 14:7; )

Eternal life is the ability to live as Heavenly Father does. It differs from Immortality in that you not only live forever, you also live in such a way that you are worthy to live in God's presence.
It is the greatest gift God can give us. But, to be able to doe this we had to have someone intercede on our part. All of us due to our mortal existence will fall short; Sin. Thus since God can not look upon sin in the least degree we would never be able to return to be in his presence, no matter how good we are. So that is where the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ comes into the picture. He was willing and able to atone for our sins and make up the difference (Gap) that we will encounter at our day of Judgement.

The Plan of Happiness (Plan of Salvation) spells out what we must do to return to live in the presence of our Heavenly Father.   In this plan we learn that to obtain eternal life we need to have a physical body and be separated from the presence of GOD for a season. During our mortal existence we will be given commands that we must follow, ordinances to fulfill, things to do that will then allow us to live in the presence of God upon our death. This can be called living the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the road map we need to follow to return to God's presence.

"We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost." Article of Faith 4

So getting back to the "endure to the end". We find we need to have faith and eventually be baptized and receive the Holy Ghost. Does that mean that is all we need to do to obtain Eternal Life?
What exactly are we to endure? How are we to endure? These are valid and weighty questions.
For in reality it would be quiet disheartening to be employed by someone that never really gave you any instructions on what they expected yet, at the end of the day claimed you had not fulfilled your end of the bargain and 'FIRED' you for your short comings.   You see how this would seem very unfair and not very just.   If you get nailed for a traffic violation you might plead ignorance since yes the law might change on a regular basis and you simple did not get the up to date information. Little different when your being held to a standard you had no way of knowing about in the first place.
Heavenly Father does not work that way. He clearly laid out a plan and has made sure that the plan is known by the people down through time. This plan is talked out in the ancient and modern scriptures.

"We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." Article of Faith 9

Going back to the idea or concept of baptism. It is labeled as one of the "first principles and ordinances of the Gospel". That means there must be more that will come afterwards. There must be other things we must do in our "enduring" process. Oh there is a lot more to do. We enter into covenants with God as we keep his commandments and fulfill the ordinances of the Gospel.
As we keep our end of the bargain we keep getting more blessings and opportunities provided by God to be more and more like him.
Take the Temple and the ordinances we perform there - Endowment, Sealing etc. There activities are further offerings on our part of our commitment to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But, is that all we need to do? Is it enough to just be baptized and call it quits? Is it enough to just get to the Temple once and call it quits?
Some might say that it is but, they are taking the easy way out. They are basically, saying that if you do it once you are good. I say it would be hard to try that with your employment.   Who would want to keep someone that just shows up once and expects to get the full reward at the end of the day?
It would kind of be like the person that starts work and does not hang in their till the end of the day.
You will not give him his pay check because he has not earned it. He has not held in there till the end and done all he can do to complete the job. He has not earned his wage so to speak.

It is the same with enduring to the end. Going to the Temple once is not enough, going to church only on occasion is not enough, doing anything just half way is not enough.

Now I know you might say hey what about the aged brother..... who can't get out and do much. He might even be coming to church in a wheel chair, or has to use a cane or walker. Each unit in the church will have those people that due to physical, emotional or mental limitations can not participate the same as the rest. You will need to make accommidations for those individuals.
They can still participate in some capacity. They might be able to make phone calls or send letters.
They might not be the best choice for working in the nursery or helping to clean the building. They might just be better suited to helping to hand out programs as a greeter or even put the program together.   The Lord is aware of the needs and limitations of all of his children. He thus allows all the opportunity to serve and participate in the Church and take full advantage of the blessing offered by the Gospel. We must not let our limitations no matter what they may be hold us back. Not giving up is part of what enduring to the end means. It means we will strive till our dying breath to live up to our covenants we have made. We will put forth our full and maximum efforts.

"Trials, deception, and iniquity—these are the enemies of endurance. Those who can bear the pain of trials, who can ignore alternate voices, whose loyalty can’t be bought with sin—these are they who will not betray their Master’s trust. They will faithfully maintain the charted course. They will endure."   Enduring to the End By Stephen E. Robinson

Buaidh no Bas

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

2014-11-12T13:24:00.001-08:00

What do the following movies Blade Runner, Wall.E, Bicentennial Man, A.I. (Artificial Intelligence) all have in common?

They all deal with Robots/Androids/Replicants that have acquired to some degree or another human like characteristics.

The Wall.E trailer sums it up wonderfully

These glitches or flaws are the main topic in reality of the films. At what point does a robot or android quit being a machine and become human? Is it even possible? Can a person go in the opposite direction?

Philip K Dick, the Sci-Fi writer, brings this topic up in a very complex way in his book entitled - Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

Humanity and it's true definition is the main issue in the book. The Bounty Hunter begins to question the necessity of terminating replicants that have come to earth from Mars. They have become so complex that a sophisticated test has to administered in person to figure out the true identify of a person. Though a built in fail safe helps to keep the problem to a minimum- androids only last 4 years or so. The lead replicant spends the whole movie trying to track down his maker to fix the problem.

He brings up the topic of how human can an android be? For that matter in much of his material he bring up the point of what defines humanity. At what point can one be called human even though they may not be totally human?

These same topics are brought up in the movie Bicentennial Man based on material by Issac Asimov

They do take the movie to a whole new level. At the time highly unrealistic. Today not so much though still far fetched. Upgrades that make him more and more real and human as time goes on. The question becomes - Is this even possible?
Can we take a machine, a mechanical device and give it a protocol or programming that can make it appear human? To be able to copy humans, in not just words or action but, deeds as well.
In Blade Runner the have to put a set of memories into the replicants to make them appear or function more human. To repress some basic issue of aggression (not totally clear on that part). Because of these planted memories it makes it much harder to tell them apart from a real human. They do have a few tell tale signs - lack of emotion, and difficulty caring for an animal; especially animals that need daily care and emotional feedback.

Can we ever get to the point that our voice recognition applications on our smart phones begin to act like a true human, something along the lines of our wife, brother, cousins, or close friend? Can it acquire the level of intelligence, emotion, empathy and other human characteristics that we can't tell the difference between how it is responding to that of our Room Mate?

For that matter is it possible to replicate human emotions, memories [nostalgia], and other reactions?
Can you really recreate the feels that come from a wonderful day at Disneyland as a child say in a robot? Can you plant the memory there and have the same effect as one that lived through the event? In Blade Runner one replicant almost can feel or act human with her planted memories. Eventually things break down a bit and she starts to have her doubts.

Now we can care this over into other things and not just humans. Is it possible to replicate say a honey bee that would function, act and produce just like the real thing? All those against GMO may cringe more then the typical person but, we may have the need to bring a "fake" bee to a field near you soon if Colony Collapse Disorder gets any worse.

Blade Runner Trailer

A.I. (artificial Intelligence) Trailer

Do we have the ability to replicate living organisms that though robotic carry out their function just as well as the real thing? Do we even have the right? That I think is the scary subject SCI-FI has been bringing up for some time. The elephant in the room no one wants to deal with!

So as you sleep tonight will your sheep be the real things or just some electric version you acquired because the real thing is way to expensive? Or maybe you really don't need to go to sleep........

Buiadh NO Bas

Revisiting the California Bag Ban

2014-10-13T14:10:00.000-07:00

As some of you might have heard the state of California has passed a state wide BAN on plastic bags.
Yep, a ban on plastic bags. Though just like the county or city specific ones it is full of holes.

I will go into details on this ban it do nothing but, kill jobs, and create more problems then it is designed to solve. It appears the over zealous forgot to think about the consequences.

One of the biggest arguments for the bag ban is the fact that the bags take a very, very, very long time to decompose and they are filling up our limited land fill space. They may also talk about the amount of plastic bags found among the trash on the street (more on that later). Some times they will refer to the plastic found in our waterways and oceans. In general the main arguments against the plastic bags seems logical. They seem something we all want. However, how these things get implemented are where things go wrong. This is where the reality gets all messed up with the back door dealing and the poor planning of how to carry things out.

trash on street including plastic bags

land fill full of plastic bags.

Typical scene of bags and other trash in the landfill or on the street.

Take a look at the logic used by Governor Brown as to why he supports the bag ban.
"Mr. Brown had signaled he would likely sign the bill earlier this month, during a debate with his Republican gubernatorial opponent, Neel Kashkari. Mr. Brown then called the ban a good "compromise" that clarifies a patchwork of prohibitions already in place in various jurisdictions across the state." California Is First to Ban Plastic Bags Statewide - Wall Street Journal
You'll soon see how this flawed logic is used through out this bag ban. Especially, since retailers have been able to calculate sales tax that varies all over the place for decades. Just, saying you have to have something better then this to persuade people.

Back in the day there was an argument that the paper bags so common in the stores at the time were in reality killing the environment since they caused to many trees to be cut down. The funny things is the paper bags are biodegradable more so then the plastic but, anyways people moved to the plastic bag. Now they are complaining about them.

So over zealous environmentalist may have been the ones that started the use of the plastic bag. However, it beginnings are not so important in the overall quest to have them banned or to remove the ban. At least in the minds of the people that want to have them banned.
(History repeating itself?)

What is most important is to refute the claims of why we need the ban. To see past the bull of how the ban was or is going to be implemented and what some of the consequences can or will be of the ban.

So let us talk about the idea of too many plastic bag in the land fills. There are plenty of pictures that show a load of plastic bags in the land fills. How many of those plastic bags in the picture are of the type you get at the store and more specifically those that are/will be banned?

I know that of those bags in the land fill you will find several types. One type you might get at the store (reusable and recyclable), the typical larger black thick bags one uses for yard waste or to line full sized trash cans, and then the smaller though equal thicker bag for lining kitchen trash cans.

You see there are several types of plastic bags. Some are thicker, some thinner. Some of the bags are recyclable and others it's not so clear. Some are big bags, others smaller. There is not just one type of bag in the land fill. So what type do we need to ban if we are to have any effect?

Basically you'd have to ban them all if you want to solve the so called problem being created by the plastic bag. Why? What good does it do to only restrict one type or a few? If you still have any type of plastic bag heading to the land fill you solve very little. I know the die hard environmentalists will say you have to start somewhere! I agree, though you need to be consistent with what you implement. Hard to claim on type is OK for the environment while another is not.

What do most people do with the bags they get at the store? If they are like our family we use them to line our trash cans. We then tie them up and throw them out to the bigger bins. Some are also used to save a thing or two in the closet. Keeps things from being dusty etc.

As we lose access to these simple bags we will need to find something else to line our trash cans, and store our stuff. What will that likely be? A plastic bag of the less recyclable type that is also thicker and less biodegradable. Does this solve anything? I'll spend more and potentially cause more harm to the environment in the long haul.

The bag you will be using now due to the ban

Now let us talk about the trash on the streets. Some have said that if you have a trash and litter problem in your neighborhood like the picture shown above you have something that is a social issue and not because of the plastic bag. Notice how the trash includes food containers that may be plastic or Styrofoam. Maybe even a milk jug (plastic or cardboard), or food wrapper. The plastic bag is only one of many trash items. I even heard of complaints they get caught up in the wind and end up in trees. Want to solve the trash issue? Do something about deterring the litter problem in the first place. Maybe fines or education. That could be a whole other discussion by itself.
You don't have much problem with plastic bags and litter in the the ritzy neighborhoods. Why? Educated people that don't go through their trash in the street.

Yes some bags do get into the ocean and water ways. I have no doubt about that. There is a floating blob of plastic and other waste in the pacific ocean that definitely needs to be looked into.
We do need to do something to keep all this waste out of the water. Again it goes back to education and other tactics. Banning one of the things found in the ocean waste will not solve the problem all by itself. Things like street sweeping will do more then bag bans ... I'll talk about that more later.

trash effecting sea life

So we see that banning bags is only a potentially partial fix. There are loads of other waste that also needs to be dealt with to solve the problem.

Now let's talk about some of the issues with how the bag ban will be implemented.

First the bag ban only applies to locations that sell food items. So that means your grocery stores, and places like Walmart and Target (that have a major food section). It does not include locations like Kohl's, Home Depot, Michael's, Joanns, TJ Maxx and the like. They don't sell food or at least the kinds or quantities that would fall under this ban. Also the plastic bag you put your produce or meat into, the clear ones, are not covered. So we are extremely selective on the types, and locations associated with the ban.

"But even when the law blankets every store, it will not mean the end of plastic bags. Consumers can still swaddle their fruits and vegetables in plastic or use bags to shield leaky meat." California plastic bag ban signed, setting off sweeping changes - Sacramento Bee

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/09/30/6748372/california-plastic-bag-ban-signed.html#storylink=cpy

"Under SB270, plastic bags will be phased out of checkout counters at large grocery stores and supermarkets such as Wal-Mart and Target starting next summer, and convenience stores and pharmacies in 2016. The law does not apply to bags used for fruits, vegetables or meats, or to shopping bags used at other retailers. It allows grocers to charge a fee of at least 10 cents for using paper bags." California Becomes First State To Ban Single-Use Plastic Bags - Huffington Post

Yes the grocery stores provide the bulk of the plastic bags in question but, they are not the only ones.
And then on top of that if you don't have your own bag they will be able to charge you a bag tax of 10¢ to acquire something to take your food home in. Many time these are either paper or thicker "reusable" plastic bags. So you have many of the same issues previously mentioned above come into play.

The reason I call it a bag tax is as follows.
1) Previously the bag were given out for free, now the store can charge for the bag.
2) It penalizes people for not bringing there own bags. (so called reeducation)
3) The money is mostly going to be used to cover the cost of the replacement bag. Even if it was used for environmental clean-up it would still be a tax or wealth redistribution.

"Lawmakers of both parties who opposed SB270 said it would penalize lower-income residents by charging them for bags they once received for free. The bill was amended to waive fees for customers who are on public assistance and limit how grocers can spend the proceeds from the fees" California Becomes First State To Ban Single-Use Plastic Bags - Huffington Post

"Opposition came from other quarters. Critics representing paper and plastic bag businesses denounced the minimum 10 cent fee as an unjustified sweetener included to buy the backing of grocery stores."
"You have to follow the money,” Assemblyman Scott Wilk, R-Santa Clarita, said during debate on the Assembly floor. “What I see this becoming is another funding source for the grocery store industry. It’s just another way of taking a shot at the little guy.”

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/09/30/6748372/california-plastic-bag-ban-signed.html#storylink=cpy

California plastic bag ban signed, setting off sweeping changes - Sacramento Bee

Remember that previously the grocery store had to supply a bag (plastic or paper) free of charge.
Now they charge you for more or less the same thing they gave away before. NO wonder there was little or no opposition from the grocery stores.

So as a a review.

Not all types of plastic bags are going to be banned.
Not all locations are required to provide an alternate bag (i.e. some stores will still provide a plastic bag).
You'll have to pay if you don't bring your own bag.
The money from the purchase of an alternate bag is not going to environmental clean-up.
Jobs will likely be lost as bag manufacturers reduce output.
Plenty of bag will still end up in the environment or landfill; especially more of the less biodegradable type.

And there are a couple of other side effects that are starting to crop up as well.
The reusable bag you bring from home is make in such a way that it may likely absorb meat and/or fruit/vegetable juices. No big deal you say. Might have pesticides, salmonella, or other dangerous bacteria. We definitely don't need to get ourselves sick because we forgot to wash our bag.
And washing that bag properly does not help save the environment if you do it right. I'm not going to wash those bags with my underwear. I don't need the associated hassles.
It's a trade off in the end. Like the plug in vehicles. You get the energy from one location or another.... the question is which is cleaner, better, safer, etc.

Another issue with anecdotal evidence is shoplifting. How the heck does shoplifting have anything to do with the plastic bag ban?
You see as people reject getting a purchased bag at the cashier they simply carry their goods out by hand or place them all back in the cart and head out to the parking lot. Do you begin to see the problem? How will security or other store personnel verify each and every person and the good they bought. It's hard enough for the loss prevention people already so this just creates some potential confusion. You might also find you have to have additional persons out in the parking lot gathering up carts. If everyone begins to reload their cart and head out you will end up with more in the lot. Before if the purchase amounted to just a few items in one or two bags they might leave the cart at the door. Nor they guys takes his loose fruit, cans, and other stuff with him in the cart. Or he might even decide to ask for help out to his car. You just wasted a bunch of man power over a lousy 4¢ plastic bag. Good luck on this one!!!!

So it is easy to see that this thing was not very well thought out. It's more of a head ache then a benefit the way they decided to implement it.

I just wish they would put the same amount of energy in to find a better way to keep the waterways clear..... oh wait that might require a bit of thinking. Something it appears the state of California Legislator and Governor don't want to do to much of.

Buaidh - NO - Bas

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/09/30/6748372/california-plastic-bag-ban-signed.html#storylink=cpy

Insight into Isaiah - You don't need to pull your hair out!

2014-07-30T11:13:00.000-07:00

As is common with our Sunday school study we will be hitting the book of Isaiah shortly since we are studying the old testament this year. The Book and writings of Isaiah are to most very hard to follow and understand.

Could it be that since he wrote it in such a older style; cryptic to a point his writings have stood the test of time. Many other writings throughout the old and new testaments have obviously been modified down through the ages. We can clearly see differences in translation and for that matter content depending on the writer and/or source.

Thus what can we do to help us understand the writing and prophecies of Isaiah?

Here is a list of a few good articles that can help. Beyond that I'll dive into some additional ideas and helps provided over the years by the modern prophets, seers and revelators.

Isaiah is truly hard because his writings do not contain stories, they don't follow a common narrative. They clearly more like a compilation of prophecies. Thus it is hard to really follow.

Here are a few points to keep in mind when dealing with Isaiah.

1. You may know more then you think. Much of what Isaiah covers is the basics of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. You may be familiar with many of the basic. Also many of his prophecies have been fulfilled. This makes things a bit easier to understand....

2. Know the main topics. You have to know the main areas that are covered by Isaiah. One suggestion is to mark various verses with different colors by topic. You might use Yellow for Jesus, Blue for the Holy Ghost, or Purple for Gospel restoration, etc. The topics could be limitless since the topical guide in the scriptures cover everything and anything. Simplify things down and cover more broad topics. You can get more detailed as you begin to understand things better. You may also find that a given verse could have several colors running though it. Many topics can be covered in just one verse.... keep this in mind.

3. Get help from Modern Prophets and Teachings.   There is a lot of material out there in regard to Isaiah. There are the manuals and helps given to the teachers and students of say seminary or Sunday School.   Many leaders have also made references to Isaiah in conference talks and other settings. These references depending on the source may have explanations given especially if it comes from an Apostle. Nephi also gives a run down of the verses he had included in the Book of Mormon.

4. Learn about the life and times of Isaiah.   What do I mean by this. If you want to understand for example why Hitler promoted what he promoted and did what he did you need to learn about what was happening in Germany around the time he came to power.   Quickly you find Germany had lost World War I. They were broke, in the dumps, rebuilding and wanted someone to blame for all their problems. He played on those needs and the fears and the anger to his advantage.   You need to do the same with Isaiah. You need to find out who was in power (Locally and globally), what were some of the traditions of his people at the time. Why were they doing what they do? Once you begin to understand the people and culture you can begin to understand his style of writing. Just as Shakespeare wrote about historical and current events of his day, his plays use a language no longer in daily use. I'm not saying Isaiah used slang but, reference to certain places, things or habits would make sense to readers of his day but, not necessarily to us.

5. Study by the Spirit.   The writing of Isaiah contain many prophecies. What better way to study them then in the attitude or prayer and fasting. As you ask for the spirit in your study you will be enlightened.   It definitely will be easier to understand the writings of Isaiah when you have a spirit filled environment. Kind of hard to to get tuned in while listening to loud, hard pounding music with other distractions present.

6. Apply his teachings in your life.   Take the time and see how you can apply the teachings of Isaiah in your life. It might not be as easy as say some of the teachings of Christ. However, you can clearly look for prophecies that have occurred or appear to be occurring. Then you can say - How does this apply to my life. You might be surprised what you find out. Think of prophecies that apply to the restoration of the Gospel, or the Second Coming of Christ. Look to the blessing of the fulfilled prophecies. You be happy as you see your on the right path. Not feeling your on the right path? Then do something about it.

Isaiah does not have to be extremely difficult or pie in the sky material you can't understand. There are so many helps available that you need not feel left out of the blessings of reading Isaiah and understanding his many teachings. Don't get left out of the Banquet! Come to the feast and really get filled up..... you can can do better then to just pick at a few thing here and there.

Buaidh - NO - Bas

America and our Constitutional Crisis

2014-07-23T13:14:00.002-07:00

Way back when the founding father decided they had to break away from England they did so because they felt they had no say in the laws, taxes and things being placed on them in the colonies.

"And I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles that had gone out of captivity were delivered by the power of God out of the hands of all other nations.” (1 Ne. 13:18–19.)

Thus the American colonies attained their independence and set up the government of the United States, all under the divine intervention of God in preparing this land for its divine destiny.

If They Will But Serve the God of the Land - N. Eldon Tanner April 1976

We can at times say the same thing is happening to us today. However, they set up a divinely inspired system that includes check and balances such that we have a hard time saying that.
For those that say - I don't want those taxes or I don't believe in that war etc. Did you vote? Have you been involved. When we find there is an activist judge legislating from the bench we have to decide to do something about the folks that can put someone new in his place or decide that type of person is not a suitable judge. That is where the checks and balances comes into play.

“This is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ.” (Ether 2:12.)

Presidents and Congress have to be elected every couple of years. They don't get the position for life.
The Supreme Court does though that is another topic of discussion for another day. Just think if the supreme court had to be elected every 3 years? What kind of havoc would that create..... create a situation of campaign promises when interpreting the laws set forth by congress and ratified by the president. I don't think that would be a very good situation.

Unfortunately, you may find that things seem to be heading into a cesspool if they have not already gotten there. We may be dismayed by activist judges, or decisions by the Supreme Court that are so narrow they seem to be skirting the issue at hand. You may see the president through executive order circumvent the system, or the inability of congress to agree on anything as just another sign of our demise. Maybe so. There is however hope.

"Unfortunately, we as a nation have apostatized in various degrees from different Constitutional principles as proclaimed by the inspired founders. We are fast approaching that moment prophesied by Joseph Smith when he said: “Even this nation will be on the very verge of crumbling to pieces and tumbling to the ground, and when the Constitution is upon the brink of ruin, this people will be the staff upon which the nation shall lean, and they shall bear the Constitution away from the very verge of destruction” (19 July 1840, as recorded by Martha Jane Knowlton Coray; ms. in Church Historian’s Office, Salt Lake City). "
Our Divine Constitution Ezra Taft Benson President of the Church October 1987

"How then can we best befriend the Constitution in this critical hour and secure the blessings of liberty and ensure the protection and guidance of our Father in Heaven?

First and foremost, we must be righteous.

"John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” (The Works of John Adams, ed. C. F. Adams, Boston: Little, Brown Co., 1851, 4:31). If the Constitution is to have continuance, this American nation, and especially the Latter-day Saints, must be virtuous.

"The Book of Mormon warns us relative to our living in this free land: “Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever” (2 Ne. 1:7).

Second, we must learn the principles of the Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers.

"Have we read The Federalist papers? Are we reading the Constitution and pondering it? Are we aware of its principles? Are we abiding by these principles and teaching them to others? Could we defend the Constitution? Can we recognize when a law is constitutionally unsound? Do we know what the prophets have said about the Constitution and the threats to it?

As Jefferson said, “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free … it expects what never was and never will be” (Letter to Colonel Charles Yancey, 6 Jan. 1816).

Third, we must become involved in civic affairs to see that we are properly represented.

"The Lord said that “he holds men accountable for their acts in relation” to governments “both in making laws and administering them” (D&C 134:1). We must follow this counsel from the Lord: “Honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil” (D&C 98:10).

Note the qualities that the Lord demands of those who are to represent us. They must be good, wise, and honest.

Fourth, we must make our influence felt by our vote, our letters, our teaching, and our advice.

"We must become accurately informed and then let others know how we feel. The Prophet Joseph Smith said: “It is our duty to concentrate all our influence to make popular that which is sound and good, and unpopular that which is unsound. ‘Tis right, politically, for a man who has influence to use it. … From henceforth I will maintain all the influence I can get” (History of the Church, 5:286).

"I have faith that the Constitution will be saved as prophesied by Joseph Smith. It will be saved by the righteous citizens of this nation who love and cherish freedom. It will be saved by enlightened members of this Church—among others—men and women who understand and abide the principles of the Constitution.

Our Divine Constitution Ezra Taft Benson President of the Church October 1987

As we look to the current issues surrounding immigration we can clear see that the system is broken.

In reality it appears be that those in charge are not interested in upholding the laws on the books. This is a country of law, the rule of law so why is it so hard to uphold the law?

Same thing could be applied in many of the situations we find ourselves in. People have decided to selectively apply the laws that benefit their angle. Federal judges making decisions on laws passed at the state level. Where is their jurisdiction?

There is nothing new here really. Want the country heading in the right direction? Start by getting involved. Find out who the best candidates will be - good, wise, and honest. That means going beyond the TV or radio commercials. Then keep them to what they promised. Let them know how you feel. You see to many times the press blames things on the members of congress directly. In many if not most cases they are following the will of the people they represent. In some cases that can clearly see a moral position needs to be taken and will in the end vote their convictions even if the majority of their district or state are voicing the opposite. They may become a one term representative but, they have done right by God.

So take heart that the "Choice Land" is not completely in the dumps. We may have to raise up and keep things on track but, as long as we are not asleep at the wheel things can't get to bad.

So take the bull by the horns and get involved.......

Buaidh - NO - Bas

A few words on the state of schools and how to teach kids

2014-06-05T10:20:00.003-07:00

So Last night we went to the Open House at the local school for my daughter.
Because she is in the 4th grade now things are very different then in kindergarten or 1st grade.

You find a lot less "crafty" projects. You know the cut and paste or glue type projects so common down at that grade level. Instead we found 4-5 stories or reports. Group project posters, a computer generated paper with area/perimeter exercises and the like. Much more sterile and frankly I remember almost all of the projects since I helped her go find a book or two on the topic, did some editing with her or the like.

What I did find a bit disturbing is the fact that several of the stories had major spelling errors in them.
Like Loin instead of lion in the title of the story - How the loin got his mane.
I know the students write most if not all of the story out by hand and then type it into the computer to eventually be printed out. So where is the spell check feature? Where is the peer review for errors in grammar and spelling?
I asked my daughter about spell check and she says no one ever told them how to use it. They just get the words underlined in red. No granted loin to lion is a huge mistake though no spell check or grammar checker would ever pick that up. Though a peer review might. They might just not understand the way the sentence is written and ask questions or flag it as being unclear or misspelled.

I know I'm talking about 4th grade and all but, you'd think there would be a bit more proof reading of stories or projects. So I though what would be the best way to help a bunch of upper grade elementary students learn the best? Is it a bunch of busy work? Is it a bunch of work sheets the answer. Do you have them do major projects that you know the parents if they care get heavily involved in? Likely not!
It also seems that many of the students are bringing back homework for math that obviously has extensive help from someone else. I some cases doing it for them.

So how do you combat the problem of making it too hard or complicated that the parent steps in and does the majority of the project? How, do you make it so they can see the application of math for example and decide they really want to learn it. In the beginning I can imagine many think it is just a bunch of busy work to be memorized. True you eventually, have to memorize the multiplication tables. True that sometimes doing is what helps them learn. However, where does the application come in? When will they finally realize the importance of proper addition with decimals as they are handed back the wrong change at the store, or go through the embarrassment of giving way to much money to the clerk and the confusion it causes.
I've seen this with my daughter because calculating a rounded percentage (ie. tax) is still a hard concept for her. So many cases she will give a $1.50 for a 99¢ packet of gum.

I like the idea she is buying something with what she deems her own money. She learns, though I can tell if I question her to much on the change she gets frustrated and not interested in figuring it out.
So there is a max point and a point of fatigue with just about anything.

And there is also the issue with group projects. How many groups have you been in that one or two members seems to be leaving everything to the last minute. They don't seem to care and you grade will be adversely effected?

So where is the balance point? Where is the point at which you will engage a majority of the students, with maximum learning ability.
I do know there are special cases. People with dyslexia, autism or other learning disabilities. Maybe even English as a second language.

And how to do balance things so that the class is all learning without leaving out one or two people specially if they are getting the material faster or slower then the rest of the class?

I like how in the past they were using the accelerated math program. One student was 1 grade or 2 head of the rest of the class in math topics because he was grasping the topics quickly.

They do something similar with reading under the same type of name. They take some type of quiz quarterly or so and it sets their level. This level sets what type of book they can read and the point value. The level indicates a grade level and the point value of the book is set per things such as length, over all concept, vocabulary and things of this level. What we found is our daughter was reading a ton of 1 point books. Barely in her level and basically you had to get a 100% to go anywhere. Then she switched over to more appropriate books with a higher point value but, still in her general reading level. Books like Heidi, Pollyanna, Series of Unfortunate Events, and other typical young reader books. These books with an average point value of say 5 got her past her goal in no time flat.

Why? The book would take say the time that was needed to read 3 or 4 of the 1 point books. Though they were worth far more points. So for a little bit more effort you could get more points even if you missed a few of the questions on the comprehension quizzes.

All this allows them to read at their level and move up as they are improving. It gives a change for content review so you know if they are getting anything out of the reading and can provide assistance if needed.

And as is clear every method will not work with every type of student. The challenge of the teachers of today is to figure out who is having troubles under the traditional system and get them help. To help the visual learn as well as the on that has to do thing hands on. Catering to each style is important. I heard that some that getting boys to read comic books is at least better then having them read nothing. You have to start at some point. and yes maybe this will stimulate them to move on to larger more complicated books. Though when I had to find a book at the school library in high school by an author of my choice it opened up a whole new dimension. I was the one choosing. I was not forced to read something under protest or because someone thought it was a classic. No guarantee it was any good though I was the one being stuck figuring out why. That critical thinking component so important. That is what we want in the end right?

Do we want a bunch of people that can spit out memorized facts that mean nothing to them or the student that can take that information and as an informed individual give some of the reasons why something happened (ie. War between the states, World war II, Viking age).

This also leads back to the common core that is being pushed so much. It seems to state that the whole country should be learning the same thing. Though they claim in as much as what you teach will be decided for you..... how you teach it will be up to the individual teacher. Hum, that should be happening already if the teacher is any good.

"While the standards set grade-specific goals, they do not define how the standards should be taught or which materials should be used to support students. States and districts recognize that there will need to be a range of supports in place to ensure that all students, including those with special needs and English language learners, can master the standards. It is up to the states to define the full range of supports appropriate for these students" Read the Standards - Common Core

There is heavy controversy on this topic and could be a whole other post by itself. What is clear is that we may not be challenging our students enough and getting through to some that need extra attention.

There are no easy solutions to this problem.... but, holding our students and teachers accountable is a good start.

So help your child get their creative juices flowing...... and maybe while they are at it they can learn to use spell check, a dictionary and proof read their material.

Buaidh - NO - Bas

Additional Scripture - Case for the affirmative

2014-05-22T10:11:00.001-07:00

Have you ever heard of someone tell you that the Bible is the "Whole" word of good? They can't even imagine you telling them there might be more or that the Bible is really not complete?

Well I'd like to get the gears in your head moving and help you to consider some aspects that might change your mind.

First off we had better define what the Bible really is.

Full Definition of BIBLE - Merriam Webster Online Dictionary

capitalized

a : the sacred scriptures of Christians comprising the Old Testament and the New Testament

b : the sacred scriptures of some other religion (as Judaism)

obsolete : book

capitalized : a copy or an edition of the Bible

: a publication that is preeminent especially in authoritativeness or wide readership <the fisherman's bible> <the bible of the entertainment industry>

I really like the 4th definition. An authoritative book or publication.

So the Bible is really just an authoritative collection of sacred scripture. The key point is a collection. That means that it might not include everything on the subject but, it sure has a fair amount and that what it does include is authoritative or for general use and benefit.

Then we also need to declare what is scripture. Why because the Bible is a collection of said scripture and will help prove my point latter on.

Full Definition of SCRIPTURE -Merriam Webster Online Dictionary

a (1) capitalized : the books of the Bible —often used in plural (2) often capitalized : a passage from the Bible

b : a body of writings considered sacred or authoritative

: something written <the primitive man's awe for any scripture — George Santayana>

See scripture defined for English-language learners »

See scripture defined for kids »

Again there is the mention of authoritative and sacred. So a guy named Fred that is a 7 times world champion salmon fisher might be asked to include something in the Fisherman's bible. He would be authoritative because he has won the championship 7 times. Now he would not be include in the Bible of scripture because he is not authoritative in the matters of doctrine, he is for fishing though.

So we find that the Bible is really just a collection of the sacred writings of holy men/women as determined at some time in the past. We accept those writing because we believe those writings to be inspired of God.

Take for example the first few books of the Bible - Genesis, Exodus, Numbers etc. that were written by Moses whom we accept as a prophet of God.
Do you think those books include everything that God communicated to Moses? And could there have been another prophet at the same time? Did God communicate with Aaron his brother or any of the 70 men he called to help him sit in judgement?

I submit for your review that he did. God communicated with other people and we simply don't have their writings. Some of them we know about and others we do not. So I propose to list a few to keep the gear turning.

Here is a partial list:
Book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14); book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18); book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11:41); book of Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29:29); book of Gad the seer (1 Chr. 29:29); book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chr. 29:29; 2 Chr. 9:29); prophecy of Ahijah (2 Chr. 9:29); visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr. 9:29; 12:15; 13:22); book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12:15); book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20:34); sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33:19); an epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Col. 4:16); and some prophecies of Enoch, known to Jude (Jude 1:14)

These are just a few of the ones listed in the Bible. The same ones some try to claim is complete, unchangeable, and the final word.
The foregoing items attest to the fact that our present Bible does not contain all of the word of the Lord that He gave to His people in former times and remind us that the Bible, in its present form, is rather incomplete.

Then we have the second issues that arises after we do that little exercise. At what point did God discontinue to speak to people here on Earth and totally abandon us? What I mean from that is if we accept the fact there are lost books or scripture then we must accept the fact that God has been communicating with people all along. Would he stop speaking to people in 65 A.D. completely?
Would he just leave us to our own devices in these current times? I might seem so since things can appear to be pretty screwed up.

I propose to you that he did not quit talking as that is not his protocol. It is not the way he works.
Amos 3:7 Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

He may have temporarily withdrawn for a while though he never leaves us flapping in the wind for too long. Have you ever noticed what they have at the end of the old Testament?
"The End of the Prophets" - Malachi 4

Interesting right. The end of the prophets some years before the new testament starts. The new testament which shows right clearly that God started communicating again with man here on Earth.
So the pattern is clear. He may stop at some point for while but, HE never leaves us alone for too long. It is kind of like when you put your child in the corner for a time out. You don't keep talking with him while he is there. You leave him alone to think things over. Then after a cooling off, repentance and humbling period you go back and communicate you displeasure and give them a hug or welcome them back to what ever was going on.

Now for the hard to convince they might say - look guy this is all fine and dandy but, the Bible says you can not add on to this right here in revelations.

Revelations 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

OK I'll take that. But does it not say the same right here in Deuteronomy?
Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

So which one is the added portion? Are either of them the added portion? Is the stuff coming after the 4th chapter of Deuteronomy? That would mean most of the Old Testament and all of the New Testament? I think many of us have been miss interpreting these scriptures for a very very long time.

I love this comment from a site giving additional insights to this train of thought

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
2. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you—by the introduction of any heathen superstition or forms of worship different from those which I have appointed (De 12:32; Nu 15:39; Mt 15:9).
neither shall ye diminish aught from it—by the neglect or omission of any of the observances, however trivial or irksome, which I have prescribed. The character and provisions of the ancient dispensation were adapted with divine wisdom to the instruction of that infant state of the church. But it was only a temporary economy; and although God here authorizes Moses to command that all its institutions should be honored with unfailing observance, this did not prevent Him from commissioning other prophets to alter or abrogate them when the end of that dispensation was attained.

biblehub.com deuteronomy 4-2 (emphasis added)

I propose that there was a time when darkness fell over the land. That the Lord and God withdrew themselves from communication with man on Earth. A time we call the great apostasy and readily prophesied of by the Apostle Paul in various places in the bible.
This forced upon us the grand confusion that has over time been present within the Christian religion.
For as you see no one was directly communicating with God and thus they were left to their own devices. Frankly things got really confusing quickly. Also since the Bible as we know it today was not in it's present form this created added confusion. You might have people using various "scriptures" that other do not accept. Or the translation one has compared to another might give to very different meanings. Confusion at the extreme.

I testify that God did once again call a prophet in modern times. That He has as his pattern can attest communicated with Man again in modern time to give us guidance and direction.
And I testify that Man is the one Joseph Smith Jr.

A wonderful video clip, mainly audio of a profile of a prophet, a modern day Prophet.
A profile, a legal brief that by legal standards proves he was a modern day prophet.

I also testify that through the prophet Joseph we received additional scripture. Additional ancient scripture, and modern revelation provided to him to reestablish the Lord's church in this Dispensation.
And that through the continuation of the Authoritative power of the Priesthood a living modern day prophet is on the Earth today. That prophet being Thomas S Monson.
That he regularly & authoritatively provides us with modern scripture - modern communication between God and Man.

Possibly still a little sceptical? Still have some doubts?

I have the answers - You simply need to ask GOD if these things are true.
He has answers people in the past and he will answers people in the future. Why would he not want you to know the truth?

Don't take my word for the truthfulness of these things, nor Hugh B. Brown. Find out for yourself.

Interested in getting a free copy of additional scripture?

Go to this website - http://www.mormon.org/free-book-of-mormon

Buiadh - NO - Bas

The Line between Public and Private

2014-05-12T15:12:00.002-07:00

Amazon.com Widgets

I would like to discuss the line between public and private.
What sparked this interest are two recent events that make you wonder where does the line get drawn on your public and private life.

The first is the total infusion of the racist comments secretly recorded of Donald Sterling - owner of the Clippers basketball team. (still as of 05/12/2014). And the second is the ousting of the CEO of Mozilla due to a $1000 donation to the Prop 8 (California Marriage intuitive) several years ago.

Any smart person knows that what they do and say in private could and likely will be used against you in the future if you have some sort of more public profile. That being - if you are in upper management of an organization, are in entertainment in anyway etc you have a public profile.
Those that are just one of 30k employees for a large company need not worry as much.

So what makes these situations a bit disturbing? The fact that something that should be private has turned into something that is public. Take the Mozilla case for a moment. What does a $1000 donation to a political cause have to do with anything? Would it have mattered if he had given the money to elect a green party candidate? How about to a political party - Communist of America, or the US NAZI party or the Democrats. It really would not. It would be a bit disturbing, but, is not a person allowed the ability to express themselves? The more disturbing is that because it was in support of a cause that got labeled as anti-gay he got hit. He donated to a hot button issue.

"The forces of intolerance won. With Eich caving in, there is no conversation, and the world is not a better place for the free exchange of ideas. " Mozilla CEO Eich caves over Prop. 8 donation

Again where does one's support of prop 8 have to do with his ability to run the company?
Maybe it does but, in the end talk is talk and actions are actions. You need to judge the person more by the actions not just the talk.
It takes a pretty good charlatan to talk like a racist in private and be 100% non racist in public.
The Sterling case is classic in this regard. He was discriminator long before these comments were leaked. He'd been to court multiple times on just these issues. But, that finally do something now years later. Seems like they are a little late to the party, and may have gone overboard to make up for something that should have been done years ago.

Where should the line be drawn when it comes to conduct in private for a more or less public figure.

Have people become so intolerant of a person being able to express their views if they are against a hot button group that they in reality are being intolerant?
I definitely see a difference between someone donating to prop. 8 for example and them saying that anyone that is gay or gay leaning can not work at my company. One is discrimination and the other is expressing a voice in the public square and going through legal channels to get things changed.
Also it seems that now in some cases you find a cloud of fear hanging over you. Decide to support something deemed against our protected group(s) and you'll be run out of town. So you don't express your opinion since you feel afraid to be harassed if someone decides to turn against you. Not good.
You begin to cut out even the civilized discussion. Why, fear that's why!

Many groups have been putting the fear factor into things for quite some time now. They make themselves appear to be move then the 10% of the population that they are. This in turn with the fact they are willing to fight in court helps them to get their way. Those groups reluctant to go to court, and that do not have a lot of people in high profile professions don't seem to be much of a threat.

Take the Montgomery bus boycott as an example. This worked as all non-violent protest should in the end due to what it caused. They found an injustice and decided to show how much they as a group could effect the overall good. They simply quit using the bus. They company to gain back the ridership and fix things had to reevaluate their policy of who sits where in the bus. They did not go around bad mouthing the drivers (they just doing their job) , or egging the buses or the like. No they found alternate forms of transportation. Then as the economics began to be felt the bus company, local government and the like had to come to the table to rectify the situation.

This is how things should be handled in cases like the basketball team owner that is racist. Quit going and then as things do down the drain he will have to sell. Who will hold on to a team that is losing a ton of money?
Works the same with any business. Take the baker and photographer that decided they would not do business associated with a same-sex wedding. The people that got rejected decided to do more then just take their business elsewhere and tell all their friends and like minded individuals to do the same. No they had to go to court and claim discrimination. Sadly, it was for what would have to be classified as religious discrimination. They chose to not bake a cake or take pictures their religious belief do not support same sex marriage. And sadly, the baker and photographer both lost.

This opens up another can of worms in my opinion. The can that states - your religious beliefs don't matter if we decide they don't matter. I guess someone could come and take someone to court if they decided to their business being closed on Sunday is discrimination. Do I see a future law suite against Hobby Lobby on the horizon. Some Atheist or agnostic decides he feels threatened, or discriminated against due to the fact they are closed on Sunday (day of the Lord ie. Sabbath) and since they don't believe in a supreme being.
Someone tried this against the Boy Scouts and it did not work in relation to the Pledge of Allegiance and Oath/Law.

Where do you draw the line? When do your religious beliefs become discrimination?

Liberty versus liberty: religious freedom bills trouble gay rights supporters

At UVU, Elder Oaks sees hope despite 'alarming' religious liberty trends

"Elder Oaks maintained that freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion doubly protect religious liberty, but he said there are reasons to be concerned about the vitality of both.
"I fear that free speech is diminishing as a result of the chilling effect of mostly invisible restraints, even censorship."
He cited a number of examples but then added another, one "very personal to me," of the boycotts, firings and intimidation of those who backed Proposition 8 — defining marriage as between a man and a woman — in California. He mentioned the recent resignation of Mozilla's new CEO over a $1,000 donation he made to Proposition 8 six years ago.
Elder Oaks called it "another unfortunate example of bullying and intimidation that too often seeks to censor speech in the public square."

I think the Mozilla case show a bit of over reach. The Donald Sterling case show a lack of action till it was past the time it would not cause other problems.

We really need to be careful when we go and take a person's personal at home talk and put it out in the the public arena. We need to be careful that we don't take things out of context. That we give the benefit of the doubt first and after we have good details then we take action. That way we allow everyone to have their turn and so there can be a civilized discourse.

Once we throw out the ability to have a civilized conversation about Politics, Religion, racism, and the like we have lost a lot of what makes America great. We have decided to let fear and extortion rule supreme. And unfortunately that is what they use in dictatorships to keep themselves in power.

Amazon.com Widgets

Buaidh - NO - Bas

Symbols of Our Faith

2014-04-21T14:47:00.000-07:00

With the recent celebration of Easter my mind has been turned to the symbols of our faith.

Why? As most who are Christians know the Easter celebration is about the final week of the life of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, some of the activities he was involved in during that last week are over looked. Much emphasis is placed on the Crucifixion. To some degree the Last Supper and time he spent in the Garden of Gethsemane, where he atoned for our sins, is downplayed. The whole week has to be taken into context and then remembered that all of it like a package has to considered together. We can't take the time in the garden out, or the other elements and still get the whole Infinite and Eternal Atonement of Christ.

"The cross is used in many Christian churches as a symbol of the Savior's death and Resurrection and as a sincere expression of faith. As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we also remember with reverence the suffering of the Savior. But because the Savior lives, we do not use the symbol of His death as the symbol of our faith." Topics - Cross

With all of this you begin to say hey what do you use as a symbol to represent that you are a Christian? Most would say they use the cross. But, that indicates they put a lot of emphasis on the crucifixion. I would rather put more emphasis on the resurrection. That glorious moment when he overcame physical death, due to the consequences of Adam and Eve partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. I would rather dwell on the suffering of Jesus in the Garden, where he sweat from every pore drops of blood, than the dying on the cross. For Christ is alive as so many of us believe, why is it then that they use the cross (symbol of his death), to represent that they are Christian?

Gordon B Hinckley a special witness of the Savior Jesus Christ relays the following experience.

"Following the renovation of the Mesa Arizona Temple some years ago, clergy of other religions were invited to tour it on the first day of the open house period. Hundreds responded. In speaking to them, I said we would be pleased to answer any queries they might have. Among these was one from a Protestant minister.

Said he: “I’ve been all through this building, this temple which carries on its face the name of Jesus Christ, but nowhere have I seen any representation of the cross, the symbol of Christianity. I have noted your buildings elsewhere and likewise find an absence of the cross. Why is this when you say you believe in Jesus Christ?”

I responded: “I do not wish to give offense to any of my Christian colleagues who use the cross on the steeples of their cathedrals and at the altars of their chapels, who wear it on their vestments, and imprint it on their books and other literature. But for us, the cross is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of the Living Christ.”

He then asked: “If you do not use the cross, what is the symbol of your religion?”

I replied that the lives of our people must become the most meaningful expression of our faith and, in fact, therefore, the symbol of our worship."

"And so, because our Savior lives, we do not use the symbol of His death as the symbol of our faith. But what shall we use? No sign, no work of art, no representation of form is adequate to express the glory and the wonder of the Living Christ. He told us what that symbol should be when He said, “If ye love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15)."

President Gordon B Hinckley - Symbol of our Faith

You see the best thing we can use as Christians in not a symbol per say. Not something like a cross around our neck, not a fish representation, not a dove with some words about prince of peace as a bumper sticker. Not even a silhouette of a temple or the Angel Moroni commonly found a top one.

No the symbol we need to use as a representation of our faith is our lives. Our lives lived in such a way that we emulate the teachings of Christ. Especially, the commandment found in Matthew 5:44

... ^aLove your ^benemies, ^cbless them that ^dcurse you, do ^egood to them that ^fhate you, and ^gpray for them which despitefully use you, and ^hpersecute you;

"Our lives must be the expression of our faith. When we are baptized and confirmed, we covenant to take upon ourselves the name of Jesus Christ. The way we live our lives should demonstrate our love for the Savior and His work." Topics - Cross

You see the best way we can show we are Christians is to act like a true follower of Christ. It does not good to put up a good appearance at church on Sunday and then turn around and do unspeakable things during the week. We really, need to turn the other cheek when smitten, to pray for those that do harm to us, and treat people like we want to be treated.

I know I'm guilty of this a much as the next. Have you found it hard to seed space to someone in the middle of rush hour traffic? Are you complaining when you have to wait for someone to cross the street, or have issues at the store and must wait extra because the person ahead of you in line is taking what seems like forever? All of these small things we can work on , and eventually get ourselves to a point of being more Christ like. Then with time we will have more and more people attracted to us..... for the crass, and judgemental will not have to many people wanting to hang our with them. Act more Christ-Like and you will have more friends.

For this is what Christ purpose on earth was. To ransom us from the pains of physical and spiritual death. For only through and by him can we have any chance of returning to live with our Father in Heaven. It is by and through him that we are alive, so we shall not dwell on his death by use of the cross.

"And now, as pertaining to this perfect atonement, wrought by the shedding of the blood of God—I testify that it took place in Gethsemane and at Golgotha, and as pertaining to Jesus Christ, I testify that he is the Son of the Living God and was crucified for the sins of the world. He is our Lord, our God, and our King. This I know of myself independent of any other person.

I am one of his witnesses, and in a coming day I shall feel the nail marks in his hands and in his feet and shall wet his feet with my tears.

But I shall not know any better then than I know now that he is God’s Almighty Son, that he is our Savior and Redeemer, and that salvation comes in and through his atoning blood and in no other way.

God grant that all of us may walk in the light as God our Father is in the light so that, according to the promises, the blood of Jesus Christ his Son will cleanse us from all sin."

The Purifying Power of Gethsemane Bruce R. McConkie

Jesus Cristo vive and por meio dele podemos novamente voltar para viver com nosso Paí Celeste. Por Ele pagou por nossos pecados e venceu a morte causado por Adâo e Eve no Jardim.
Jesus é nosso Salvador e intermediario com Deus.

Buaidh - NO - Bas

The Conspiracy - Holocaust and World War II

2014-03-20T10:44:00.000-07:00

I've been fascinated for some time on how it was that the Nazis were able to pull off what they did during World War II.
How Hitler rose to power and all the things generally associated with the war.

So I found a movie at the library called Conspiracy that details what went on at the Wannsee conference in 1942. This was a secret meeting held near Berlin to as it is called "come up with a final solution to the Jewish Question. Or resolve the Jewish Question."
Very Stale movie in reality. To much Heil Hitler in the beginning and clearly racist throughout.

A full version of the movie all 1 1/2 hours.
What I find interesting is how it is detailed in the movie that everyone in a general sense was worried about having some legal claim as they "evacuated" the Jews. You see they wanted to have some legal claim to stand on. That all the relocating, sterilization, and eventual gassing was OK per some legal definition.
The other things that becomes clear is that by that point they had already begun to experiment with ways of "evacuating" the Jews on a mass scale. Originally, it seemed that this was the conference that defined the policy of the Holocaust. Reality, is it was simply a meeting of mid level military personnel and ministry heads to convey the message that you need to do everything you can to help the Reich to "evacuate" the Jews. They were receiving the policy not making the policy.
You see things can be deceptive. If you think of this as the first time they come up with a policy to kill Jews in mass then you will truly believe that in 3 short years - 6 million dead is just amazing. Reality indicates they were not so efficient. Detractors have clearly presented in some videos what they believe is the lies of the holocaust. They'll even tell you how they should have done it if they were to have killed the numbers professed. They basically prove through their critics that the Holocaust did happen. That there was a concentrated effort by the Nazis to exterminate the Jews, in mass. And had they been given more time may have succeeded. If you give them only the 3 years from the 1942 Wannsee meeting you'd have on average 5000 persons killed per day. Even spreading this among 3-4 death camps that number is huge. So I concur with the skeptics the numbers do not totally match up. They never will since only portions of the death are documented. However, per things I got from the movie they'd been killing off people in various forms for some time before the Conference. They mention use of gas trucks, and the Ghettos in places like Poland were already in full force. So how many people died each year from the beginning of the war? Did it ramp up drastically after this conference? NO doubt about it. But, many had already died.

Locations of Death and concentration camps World War II Europe

What I always believe is if they had started earlier, and been even more organized then they were you really might have had a complete extermination of the Jews in some places. As it stands the majority of the deaths of Jews comes from Poland and they were nearly cleared out.
Had they had another year or two what could have happened?

Holocaust death totals by country

The estimated total number of people executed in the Nazi camps in the table below is over three million:

Camp	Estimated deaths	Operational	Current country of location	Primary means for mass killings
Auschwitz–Birkenau	1,100,000^[30]	May 1940 – January 1945	Poland	Zyklon B gas chambers
Bełżec	600,000^[31]	17 March 1942 – end of June 1943	Poland	Carbon monoxide gas chambers
Chełmno	320,000^[32]	8 December 1941 – March 1943, June 1944 – 18 January 1945	Poland	Carbon monoxide vans
Majdanek	80,000^[33]	October 1, 1941 — July 22, 1944	Poland	Zyklon B gas chambers
Maly Trostinets	200,000^[34]	Summer of 1941 to 28 June 1944	Belarus	Mass shootings, Carbon monoxide van
Sajmište	23,000– 47,000	28 October 1941–July 1944	Serbia	Carbon monoxide van
Sobibor	250,000^[35]	16 May 1942 – 17 October 1943	Poland	Carbon monoxide gas chambers
Treblinka	800,000^[36]	22 July 1942 – 19 October 1943	Poland	Carbon monoxide gas chambers
Total	3,115,000– 3,215,000

a table listing estimates of deaths at concentration camps from wikipedia.org
Some will try and pass off the holocaust as something run by a few 'wack jobs' that did not represent the whole of German society. There are film clips available that show local resident near some of the camps being forced to take a tour shortly after liberation. Many wanted to be sick..... but you have to wonder how it is they never smelled anything coming from the direction of the camps.
This is well shown how the local family of the camp director just ignored the things going on so close to them in basically their back yard in - The Boy in the Striped Pajamas.
The general consensus within the population was that they wanted the Jews Gone. They then turned a blind eye to how it happened.

Something of a parting thought. Could this type of thing happen in our day and age?
With our 24 hours news cycle, Internet connectivity, and global interconnectedness is is really possible this type of mass extermination could occur.

Some would say that it has. Look to Africa being the forgotten continent. The place that war seems a constant and people in power regularly are 'rubbing out' the opposition that in many cases of a different ethnic tribe.

Our challenge is to get beyond the hatred, bigotry and become more loving and friendly to those around us. To be more open to new ideas, religions and peoples.... not to the point of losing our own identify but, more along the lines of co-existing for the greater good.

For every culture, race or religion has it's good points and it's less then savory sides.
You can find what your looking for if you search hard enough.

Buaidh - NO - Bas

Faith and Archaeology

2014-02-27T12:02:00.002-08:00

Recently for some reason I was looking for some type of religious based material on youtube.com. I wanted something a little different then the norm and happened to fall into videos on archaeology and the Book of Mormon.

What I find interesting is that there are people trying to prove or disprove the Book of Mormon or other scripture for that matter based on the archaeological record and what has been found or not found.

These videos covered everything from horses in the Americas to where the lands referenced in the Book of Mormon really lay.

You see these two things don't directly mesh together. A testimony of the Bible, Book of Mormon or other scripture comes not from hard proof. It comes from study, faith, prayer and putting the principles to the test.
Same thing goes for some of these self help or improvement books. You see something that seems interesting and that you might want to improve. You get the book out of curiosity, and then as you read it you will either quick feel good about the material or not. Then you might have faith that if you apply the principles given in the book you can change things.
That is where the proving part comes in. The same to a certain extent is what you do with scripture.

Moroni 10: 3-4
3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how ^amerciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ^bponder it in your ^chearts.

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ^aask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not ^btrue; and if ye shall ask with a ^csincere heart, with ^dreal intent, having ^efaith in Christ, he will ^fmanifest the ^gtruth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

So when the archaeologists go looking around for the place the ark landed when the flood stopped or the precise location along the river Jordan that Christ was baptized or the actual location of the narrow neck of land referenced in the Book of Mormon are they doing so due to faith and a testimony of the truthfulness of the events they are trying to prove or is it something else.

There are many well meaning people doing this research. From biblical location to those in the Americas. Are they really building a testimony based on faith, study and prayer or are they trying to go beyond that?

Will you believe less in the bible if they can not find a certain city mentioned, or the tomb where Jesus lay? For most it will not diminish they faith and testimony. For some it appears that it does or can effect things. One person tried to locate many things associated with the Book of Mormon. For some reason after a time of limited returns this person lost their testimony in the the Book of Mormon because of the lack of evidence. Kind of silly really.

To say you believe in the teachings and principles in a book which is declared to be scripture and then to turn around and say - sorry due to the fact we can not find the city Zarahemla, or Manti I'm not believing in this book any more.

Alma 5:46 & 5:26

46 Behold, I say unto you they are made ^aknown unto me by the Holy Spirit of God. Behold, I have ^bfasted and prayed many days that I might know these things of myself. And now I do know of myself that they are true; for the Lord God hath made them manifest unto me by his Holy Spirit; and this is the spirit of ^crevelation which is in me.
26 And now behold, I say unto you, my brethren, if ye have experienced a ^achange of heart, and if ye have felt to sing the ^bsong of redeeming love, I would ask, ^ccan ye feel so now?

See he knew of the truthfulness by way of fasting and pray and confirmation via the Holy Ghost. Not by having found the holy grail, or a hidden city or confirmation that horses existed before the Spaniards in the Americas.
also a good question is posed. Can you feel so now? That question is key.   Are you still getting confirmations about the scriptures you are reading? Are you feeling the influence of the Holy Ghost in your life. If not.... why?

These two concepts are really diametrically opposed to one another. One is founded in faith, the other is founded in a lack there of.   You see will you believe the Book of Mormon just because someone finds a ruined city fully preserved that has a perfect depiction of Christ descending out of the heavens and having people feel his wounds? I'm going to guess not.

So why is there so much archaeology going on that is trying to prove the things mentioned in the Book of Mormon?
For that matter why so much research into the ancient civilization in any part of the world.

Is it for understanding? Is it to prove something many are not believing?
It could very well be all of that.

You see there confirmations made by researchers and archaeologists is really just the icing on the cake. You can be turned off by a lack of icing or even badly applied icing on a cake.
The more appealing it is the more likely you will want to partake of the rest of the cake. That is when you bit into the middle or hidden portions within the cake. This too must have a certain appeal but, the taste and texture is what will win you over. Same with the scriptures. As you get beyond the icing or physical, superficial facts, locations, finding etc you will get into the meat of the subject. You will get into the principles that can really change your life. They too have to be appealing but, it is the ability to feel the spirit and see the results of those principles that will make you want to continue you on. The really good cake will even make you want to get some more... it will cause you to thirst for additional satisfaction you find there in.   So so cake or that which is to piled high with frosting or lacking in quality internal ingredients will leaving you wanting for something else.

Good balance with substance beyond the fluff

Where is the cake?

The same can be applied to Book of Mormon archaeology. If you pile it on to high they will over look the good stuff in the middle or maybe be diverted from finding the good stuff in the middle due to piles of fluff and icing. We really have to be careful with over doing the proof part for the Book of Mormon. Let us use the icing sparingly and then make sure to find the right stuff on the inside that will help keep us satisfied.

Can You Feel So Now? - Elder Quentin L. Cook

So if you want a copy of the book to read for yourself. CLICK HERE

You can put it to the test yourself.

Buaidh - NO - Bas

Fasting and Prayer

2014-02-06T14:10:00.000-08:00

It is custom in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to hold a fast and testimony meeting on the first Sunday of the month. During this meeting time is provided after partaking of the sacrament for people from the congregation to come and bear testimony at the pulpit.
This last fast Sunday we were asked by the local and area leadership of the church to include the drought situation into our fasting. You see here in California many locations are at 20-30% of their normal water supply. January went down as one of the driest on records for places like Sacramento and San Francisco. The governor even declared a state of emergency since most if not all of the farmers in the central valley will not be getting any state allocated water. We simply have been getting less then the normal amounts of rain the last few years. We have ended up in a drought.
So on that first Sunday of the month we all put our efforts into fasting and praying so that we might receive moisture through out the land. Our local leaders even reached out to other faith organizations to ask us to join together in this noble request. The request that the Lord provide us with the moisture we need to sustain our lives. a great scripture was provided in the letter from area leadership

Isaiah 58:11 And the Lord shall guide thee continually, and satisfy thy soul in drought, and make fat thy bones: and thou shalt be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water, whose waters fail not.

This scripture is interesting in the fact that it uses the word drought but, really is referring not just droughts of moisture in our lives. We can be having other types of droughts.
This was highlighted by all those that presented the message regarding the fast (We heard the message twice due to attending a missionary farewell).

Well I can say that we in deed saw a miracle related to this combined effort in fasting and praying for rain.
Even before the fast day my daughter included a simple plea for rain in her prayers. I know many other people have and continue to do so.
That fast Sunday we got some moisture. For our area that had received no measurable precipitation during January it as just wonderful. Then we got some more a couple days later. And now another storm coming through the area. The totals are low still. You have places that on average receive just over 2 inches of rain in January receiving half an inch.

Think if we had gotten a massive down pouring at first? Say double our normal levels?
We'd have flooding and other problems. It would have solved nothing.
So the moisture has started out slow..... building up in intensity so that the land may handle it. And the best part of all is that much of this rain is falling in the places it is needed most.
Newport Beach needs the water but, getting part of an inch more or less will not effect much. Now that makes a big difference if it is in our mountains where the all important snow pack lay. All the right places were receiving moisture.

Now you may want to say this happen stance. Pure chance..... that the storm that came that fast Sunday was going to come one way or the other. That may be so.... but, you have to admit the Lord had a hand in making sure we keep getting additional storms. Storms that provide some moisture in measured amounts so that we do not go from drought to flooding.

You see at times I think the Lord might provide us with the beginnings of the much needed moisture we need to over come a drought and then sit back and wait to see if we give thanks for that which we have received. Do you remember the story of the 10 leapers in the new testament. How many of them came back and thanked Jesus after he had cured them? Only one right. Now Jesus gave freely when he healed. He did not hold that type of thing against someone. He equally helped the saint and the sinner. Especially, the sinner.

As they say relating a church to a hospital. The church is for the sick(sinner), if not we'd have no need to be there......

so as we look to the miracle that came via the faith of many people in the western region of the united states we must the Lord's Hand in all things.

You see we have had answers to our fasting and prayer. We have begun to receive the moisture we need to heal this land. To make it once again productive and fruitful.
But, the big test is what will be doing after. Will we chalk it up to science, or our ability in getting clouds to form? Or will be simply accept the fact we are mere mortals and that God is really the one in charge? The one that can bring a famine or rain as he sees fit.

For he giveth and he taketh away

Buiadh - NO - Bas

Plastic Bag Ban

2014-01-30T07:44:00.001-08:00

I'd like to talk about plastic bag bans. Especially, now that I'm hearing they are trying to pull off a bag ban for the whole state of California. See this article - http://www.kfiam640.com/articles/local-news-465708/plastic-bag-ban-12003880/

You see out here in California we have some pretty heavy environmentalists and they have thus far gotten a few cities (Huntington Beach, etc) and Counties (Los Angeles) to pass some form of plastic bag ban.

The hallmark of the bag ban is that since you can't get the 'free' plastic bag your used to at the grocery store you have to be offered a paper bag for 10¢. They claim all this is to help the environment and keep things clean. Like Huntington Beach for example. They have a lot of beach front area and I guess they are worried they will be to many plastic bags ending up in the ocean or on the beach. I live in a neighboring city and don't see all that many plastic bags flying around the street as litter or trash. I see more with the homeless people then anywhere else.

They always say they want to change our habits and get us to use the cloth reusable bag. They say it is for the environment, and will reduce our landfill volume. You see we have what some might say are to many people here in California. So the land fills are filling up quickly. Yes, maybe cutting out a certain number of bags per household will help cut things down but, maybe they will not.
You see they over look a lot of things when they place a plastic bag ban like this in place or are they just blind to the issues?

I'd like to address some of these areas of concern here in this posting.

Helps the Environment:

This may be true. There are many factors that are causing problems to our marine life in the oceans. Plastic bags are just one elements of many.
"Common marine debris items includes things like cigarette butts, cans, plastic bags and bottles, styrofoam, balloons, lighters, and toothbrushes. Discarded or lost fishing gear such as lines, nets and buoys are especially dangerous to sea life. "
Ocean Plastics - SeeTurtles
To really solve the problem we have to eliminate the stuff ending up in the ocean and that might require banning all the things on their list. Are we ready to ban toothbrushes since they are made of plastic? Can you see where I'm going here. Plastic bags are just one element among many that are causing problems. So you say "we have to start somewhere!". Yes, but why are we picking plastic bags? And think of the alternate being forced as an option. Paper bags for 10¢. Where are all the paper bags coming from? You have to cut down a tree to get the paper bag. Yes the paper bag is recyclable just as much as some plastic bags. They are also biodegradable just like some forms of plastic bags.

What is interesting to note is in the Hunting Beach, CA ban, a biodegradable bag can not be offered.
"Are biodegradable bags allowed? No. Any bag made predominantly of plastic derived from either petroleum or biologically-based source, such as corn or other plant sources, which is provided to a customer at the point of sale is prohibited. The term plastic carryout bag includes compostable and biodegradable bags, but does not include reusable bags, produce bags or product bags." City of Huntington Beach Reusable Bag Ordinance FAQ

You see the one type of plastic bag they keep in there? The produce bag. The small clear ones you put your tomatoes or pears in. They are not banned. The biodegradable or compostable ones are. So will this fix things in the end. Maybe, maybe not. They really need to look at alternates. It seems like it would have been better to force stores to have biodegradable bags instead. They works if it ends up in a land fill or the ocean. It simply disappears after a while.
"The study also examines the economic, environmental and health effects of bag bans and analyzes their potential costs and benefits. Plastic bags are better for the environment than reusable or paper bags. For an equivalent amount of groceries, production of paper bags requires three times as much total energy and recovers only 1 percent of that energy through combustion. Paper bags also produce substantially more landfill waste. For an equivalent amount of groceries, single-use plastic bags produce 15.5 pounds of waste while paper bags produce nearly 75 pounds of waste" A Survey on the Economic Effects of Los Angeles County’s Plastic Bag Ban

Cut down on landfill volume:

This is a sensitive area to discuss. I've not seen any of the local landfills that are getting filled and near capacity. I do know there is a heck of a lot of trash being picked up each week in the trash bins down our alley. Many of them are filled to the brim with a variety of stuff. People even come and 'dumpster dive' to get any recyclables out. That usually means aluminum cans, and plastic bottles.
For one I've heard that I the past our city had all the garbage sent to a collection center to remove recyclables like metal, plastic and the like. A very good idea. Supposedly, it pays for its self. I think of the amount of money on the table that is being literally thrown away. In California and other areas they put a surcharge on plastic bottles and aluminum cans to promote recycling. Does not seem to be working if people are just willing to dump those items in the trash.
Will that be what happens due to the plastic bag ban. You become immune to it after a while and quit caring?

I know in the city of industry they have a power plant that is run off of garbage. Yes, they load up a chamber with garbage from multiple truck and then shot some type of flame into the chamber. They trash is then burnt and the harness the energy. We need these innovative ideas and projects to solve the land fill issue. Banning one type of bag so you can send a few less to the land fill is not going to solve the problem. Take our household for example. Unless the bad is torn or too full of holes we reuse them to store things or as trash can liners. In the long haul this helps to keep the trash together so it does not end up in the gutter and eventually in the ocean. We'd also have to acquire some type of bag line to replace the plastic bag being reused after grocery shopping. Same amount of plastic goes to the land fill in this case.
Innovations in packaging could do more to reduce land fill volume. Like when they removed the extra plastic lids on the yogurt cups and stuck to just the foil cover. Imagine how much stayed out of the land fill doing that?

Effect on jobs in the local economy:

"There are no economic or environmental reasons for banning or taxing plastic bags."
A Survey on the Economic Effects of Los Angeles County’s Plastic Bag Ban

In studies done regarding the Los Angeles County bag ban for unincorporated areas an indirect result was the loss of business to the effected area and an increase to those that don't have the ban. Since the ban was covering only a few areas you had little incentive to change more then your buying habits to not be inconvenienced by the ban. I suspect the same over time will happen with the ban in Huntington Beach. If you can go to a neighboring area (being reasonably not out of the way) you will. A statewide ban would solve that problem but really effect the bag makers and others.
Did anyone really study how much total energy is required to make the paper bag or reusable bag verses the plastic bag?
Paper bags as well are likely to fall apart and not be reused. Forming holes due to stains or spills. The holes in plastic bags don't come from stains or spills. You can dump some bad lentil soup and have a reasonable belief it will not leak. Can't do that with a paper bag.

"Though outside the scope of this study, it is worth noting that most thin-film plastic bags are made in the United States, and the plastics manufacturing industry employs more than 30,000 people directly and many more indirectly."
A Survey on the Economic Effects of Los Angeles County’s Plastic Bag Ban

"The Bag Tax will eliminate a net of 101 local jobs. The job losses will cause annual wages to fall by $18 per worker and aggregate real disposable income to fall by $5.64 million. The wage and income losses will combine to lower income tax collections." The Impact of Bill 18-150 on the Economy of Washington, D.C. - D.C. Bag Tax

Most reusable bag are made overseas. And there are some creative ideas formed to get around paying for a bag. One guy I saw had simply put everything back in his cart at Sprouts. Then took that cart out to the parking lot.

"Shopping Carts and Hand Baskets.
Almost 20 percent of stores noted increases in the loss of shopping carts or hard shopping baskets."
A Survey on the Economic Effects of Los Angeles County’s Plastic Bag Ban
The bottom line on economic impact is this - The people making the bag will become unemployed (maybe not all due to exemptions etc), some businesses will see a reduction in sales (depending on how wide spread the ban is), and there could be an over waste of gas as people change their habits to avoid the location. Potentially you might see a loss in overall sales and/or income tax due to the losses in sales and employment.

"We will reduce quite dramatically the scourge of the plastic bags on our beaches and in the L.A. River, and at the same time we will grow jobs," said state Sen. Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles), who has recently garnered sufficient support to become the next president pro tem of the Senate.
http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-plastic-bags-20140124,0,6264807.story#ixzz2rpIBEH6b

Reality is that the economic impact is hard to quantify but, may become clearer over the years. The question then becomes do we want to risk it given all the other factors that seem to be clearer and for which we have better data.

Grocery stores not opposed due to indirect bribery:

What is interesting in all of this (especially with the CA state ban) is that there is usually a 10¢ fee/tax for an alternate bag (usually paper). Who keeps the 10¢ is what usually changes. A few select locations have the money going towards conservation or environmental clean. In many others the retailers keep the money. So the stores go from providing a low cost plastic bag or in some cases paper bag for free to charging 10¢ to get a paper bag. I'm not totally sure how much paper bags cost to make but, just think of the revenue you generate going from free to charging. It's pure profit.
Most stores would not accept the deal unless this situation exists. They may be inconvenienced but, in the long haul they make money so they don't make a fuss. So it is like a BRIBE.
We want to ban a bag that "is causing environmental issues", so here is a way you will make some money if you go along with our program. It smells of a bribe even if it is not called that.

Because be frank, what business is going to accept a potentially big headache (unhappy customers, redo of bags, etc) with no potential reward of positive outcome for them. More work on our end for no gain on our end does not compute. So they have to sweeten the deal and say "we will give you some potential profit or at least money to cover expenses." if you have to do that to get this thing accepted then you are going about it all wrong.

The 10-cent fee is intended to reimburse retailers for the cost of providing alternative bags and to encourage shoppers to bring their own reusable bags to the store, De Leon said.
http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-plastic-bags-20140124,0,6264807.story#ixzz2rpITqkOO

"To address a concern of merchants, businesses would keep 3 cents from the fee to cover administrative costs. Jeff Zellmer, senior vice president of the Maryland Retailers Association, said the figure is reasonable." Shoppers in city may see 10-cent bag fee

Again we have a situation that if I want a paper bag now I pay nothing. It's just a cost of doing business. In the future I'll have to pay for it. Not hard to see why the grocery stores are not opposing the new ban!

Unforeseen health risks:

"In theory, plastic grocery bags are supposed to be replaced with those reusable canvas totes, thus cutting down on plastic waste. But now, it turns out, the canvas totes are being cited as a potential health risk by Aberdeen University’s Hugh Pennington, a professor of bacteriology and one of Britain’s leading food scientists. It seems that when these bags are used to carry meat — even meat that is wrapped — they tend to harbour dangerous bacteria that can increase the risk of food poisoning when the bags are reused. The law of unintended consequences strikes again. "
The Law of Unintended Consequences and Plastic Bag Levy

Reusable bags may present health risk - azcentral.com

If you can guarantee that when you go to the store you will always have your meat put in the meat bag then fine. But what happens when the bagger is half asleep and puts your tangerines in there?
So you say why not just bag it yourself to cut down that problem. Fine. But, now some people become unemployed. See the above to see what effect that has.

Not an easy thing. This appears to be the least of the hassles until you get e.coli and end up in the hospital for 5 days.

The bottom line in all this that there is a wealth of information out that there will definately be unintended consequences. This information indicates we need to do something to reduce the amount of waste (plastic and otherwise) that is ending up on our streams, river, lakes, bays and oceans. Plastic bags are only a small percentage of over all waste. They don't increase the volume in land fill or the trash heap floating in the ocean as much as we might think. That plastic bags may be the more environmentally sound option when the details are looked at. That there are economic consequences to applying this "tax" on the general public, and that grocers are not opposed because they are being bought off with part of the fees.

What you have is really a people problem. We need to educate the public on how to properly handle their plastic bags.

If we educate people in the art of recycling and get them to have concern for their local community most of not all of this problem will likely go away or be put under control. Why is it we see some areas free of plastic bags on the street, in the trees or in the streams? Because the people that live there care. The houses are well maintained, the communities are nice and people are out and about and just plain friendly.

So let us study and think before we get all hot to putting in a plastic bag ban!

Buaidh - NO - Bas

Political Correctness?

2013-12-23T11:25:00.000-08:00

I feel I have to define political correctness before we move along in this post. This definition comes straight off a Google search.

po·lit·i·cal·ly cor·rect

pəˈlitik(ə)lē/

adjective

adjective: politically correct; adjective: politically incorrect; adjective: incorrect

1.

exhibiting (or failing to exhibit) political correctness.

"it is not politically correct to laugh at speech impediments"

synonyms: unoffensive, nondiscriminatory, unbiased, neutral, appropriate, nonpartisan; More

informalPC

"the true meaning may be clouded by his politically correct language"

antonyms: offensive

With that out of the way we can see how this is effecting society in a broader sense.

Most likely you have heard of the Duck Dynasty controversy where some comments made during an interview with GQ magazine we declared to be homophobic and not politically correct.
So you say what could it be so bad that multiple gay rights groups started hating on Phil Robertson the patriarch of the family. We I'll have to quote directly.

“It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

The article has some odd course language in it that come from the writer. I'm not sure it was necessary in reality.

So we see some over the top comments here. Things that could potentially offend people. But, here is the problem with political correctness. Some times if you call the kettle black you get lambasted for doing so. The other issue with political correctness is that depending on the source it is OK, and at other times it is not. There is a definite double standard on comments in the political correctness arena. "the good is called bad, and the bad called good".

The worst is how he quotes scriptures loosely (no specific scriptural reference is given in the article) and gets attacked for it. The part that is hardest to understand is

Here is a good way to sum up what the political correctness thing is doing to society.

"In other words, A & E—like ESPN/ABC before them—believes that their "Duck Dynasty" audience is outraged, disgusted, or whatever by Phil the duck guy, and that enough of this audience would change the channel if Phill stayed on that A & E would lose money. Is A & E correct in this belief? Time will tell. - OldCoyote"

See there is fear here. People do not feel free to voice their opinion out of fear someone will call them insensitive, bigoted, homophobic or racist. The whole freedom of speech (within limits) has been thrown out the window. Feelings or perceived feelings are more important then reality.

At what point can we just get pasted the issue of your comments are going to offend someone and there is nothing that can be done about it. Each little one percent minority group (sexual, racial, economic, etc) can't have everyone skewered and hung out to dry for every little comment.
NO I do think the line has to be drawn when one is inciting violence or the like.

Now some may argue that if this type of political correctness was in place in Nazi Germany then we would likely not have ended up with the holocaust the way we did. Hard to say since that would be rewriting history. Censoring ones comments in public also does not fix ones real at home or private opinions and actions.

It really does get hard to have a minority portion of the population push their views on the rest of society. We have to stop this "whom ever yells/complains the loudest wins" type of situation.
Tolerance has to go both ways. it is like a two way street. Unfortunately a bicycle is plugging things up and making people turn around because they are being inconvenienced. We have to stop that and get our heads out of the clouds. We have to put things in to more black and white terms. To clear up the murkiness that comes with political correctness, with redefining things to your benefit.

"But one thing is certain: the commandments have not changed. Let there be no mistake about that. Right is still right. Wrong is still wrong, no matter how cleverly cloaked in respectability or political correctness. We believe in chastity before marriage and fidelity ever after. That standard is an absolute standard of truth. It is neither subject to public opinion polls nor dependent upon situation or circumstance. There is no need to debate it or other gospel standards."
Like a Flame Unquenchable M. Russell Ballard Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

This sketch shows political correctness going over board. Have we gotten to this point in society today?

"MSNBC & The Great Liberal Narrative: The Truth About The Tyranny of Political Correctness"

George Carlin On Politically Correct Language

After you watch these videos you will find that they include the extreme. You might say they are so extreme that it might never happen. But take the respond of the GLAAD spokesperson that the Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty was spouting lies.
"GLAAD spokesman Wilson Cruz had an immediate response.
“Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe,” Cruz said. “He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans — and Americans — who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples" ‘Duck Dynasty’ Star Bashes Gays

How off base can you get. I fail to see the lie in the opinion as quoted out of the magazine article.
This is the problem with political correctness. Claim the other is lying and shout louder then them and you win much of the time. Make it hard to see the fact.... read the whole comment or opinion in context. This is what they love to do...... Throw things at the wall hoping things will stick and that society in general will not look to closely at the details.

I'm reminded of the Emperor's New Cloths by Hans Christian Andersen. It took a simple innocent young boy to say the truth about the non existent cloths. Everyone was to afraid to offend, make feel bad or just plain be "Politically incorrect".   They did not want to call the kettle black. Instead it became green or purple or something else.....
And that is what we have to fight today.

We have to fight the twisting of the truth to make it fit the narrative we want or they want.   We have to present the truth as we find it and help people come to their own conclusions.

That is one reason I like my church so much. We don't say for you to just take our word for it. Or to join or stay a member just because your parent is. We say..... "Go and provide it"; "Ask the higher source if it really is what he has placed on earth!".   How many other organization, religions etc are willing to put it all on the line?

Buaidh - NO - Bas

A few of the many articles out there on the duck dynasty subject and other politically correct situations.

‘Duck Dynasty’ Star Thanks Fans for ‘Support’: ‘We’ve Had Kind of a Crazy Week’
‘Duck Dynasty’ Star Bashes Gays
‘Duck Dynasty’: Phil Robertson Anti-Gay Sermon Surfaces (Video)
No Other Gods By Elder Dallin H. Oaks Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
The Moral Force of Women By Elder D. Todd Christofferson Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
Readers React to GQ's 'Duck Dynasty' Story and Phil Robertson's Indefinite Suspension
Bill Maher & Dennis Miller on Free Speech vs Political Correctness (2002)