Orrin Hatch destroys Dan

[babe]

I should probably let Franklin answer this himself. But clearly he has overstated the case about Ezra Taft Benson and those who hold him in special regard as a proponent of human rights, human liberty, and the US Constitution, considering God to be the author of our liberty and the champion of all that's good in human society.

There have been many influential and highly-praised LDS leaders who have sought the favor of this world's elites in various ways, including that recruiting arm of elitism which is securing influence on a continuing and unrelenting basis with anyone who has any particular ability to lead, to get notice in public, or to earn money.

Ezra Taft Benson was perhaps the lone holdout in his day among LDS leadership who really cared about human liberty and stood for actual principle in the political sphere.

Today, Mormons such as Mitt Romney, Orrin Hatch, Jon Huntsman, or Harry Reid are all alike when they speak of the US Constitution.

In their minds, the US Constitution is a "living oracle" that can miraculously transform itself from time to time to fit the needs of the day, as understood by the highest echelons of human elites, the grand movers and shakers who know what's best for this world. They have no idea what George Bush was allegedly referring to when he complained about "that damn piece of paper."

Like the latest policies and well-crafted statements of belief released by LDS public relations officials, the demands of progressivism require constant re-shaping of nuances and even words in the political life of a nation.

Take the clear little phrase "rule of law" for example. In the hands of truly intelligent folks, it has no relation to any State Code, nor to the things entered into the Congressional Record or Federal Register, or the rulings of any federal superagency. . . . or to the whole of judicial precedent in all the law libraries of the world. . . . as to say so would be to ignore the plain fact that no law can really constrain any truly important or powerful man with a willing army at his heels. So, clearly, "the rule of law" means nothing more, and certainly nothing less, than the right to rule in a way satisfactory to the highest ranking elites.

And our only human hope is that these imbeciles will spend more time jousting with one another for supremacy than with us.

 

[TroutBum]

When it comes to being part of your church, Snout, you do SO much more harm than good.

I like that name. Snout has just the right amount of awesome mixed with a touch of phallus. I approve. Also, when have I ever claimed that I'm a good spokesman for the LDS church? Here's a hint: Never.

I don't hate Mormons.

Would it be too gay if I said, "ROFL"? Because that's what popped into my head.

I hate two faced bullies and those who facilitate them.

So, does having multiple accounts count as being "two faced", you hack? And how exactly does one go about facilitating a bully? I assume you're talking about innerweb bullies, right?

If I'm anything I'm a characterist, as Martin Luther King Jr. wanted us all to be.

MLK wanted us all to be slobbering douche flaps? And I thought Black History Month was bad...

 

[franklin]

What were those "platforms."

Using government to break down the imbalances created by wealth.

Then:

If you do not pursue a righteous course, we will separate you from the Church. Is that all? No. If necessary we will take your grain from your bin and distribute it among the poor and needy, and they shall be fed and supplied with work, and you shall receive what your grain is worth.

--Brigham Young, 1855

The experience of mankind has shown that the people of communities and nations among whom wealth is the most equally distributed, enjoy the largest degree of liberty, are the least exposed to tyranny and oppression and suffer the least from luxurious habits which beget vice. Under such a system, carefully maintained there could be no great aggregations of either real or personal property in the hands of a few; especially so while the laws, forbidding the taking of usury or interest for money or property loaned, continued in force.

One of the great evils with which our own nation is menaced at the present time is the wonderful growth of wealth in the hands of a comparatively few individuals. The very liberties for which our fathers contended so steadfastly and courageously, and which they bequeathed to us as a priceless legacy, are endangered by the monstrous power which this accumulation of wealth gives to a few individuals and a few powerful corporations. By its seductive influence results are accomplished which, were it more equally distributed, would be impossible under our form of government. It threatens to give shape to the legislation, both State and National, of the entire country. If this evil should not be checked, and measures not taken to prevent the continued enormous growth of riches among the class already rich, and the painful increase of destitution and want among the poor, the nation is likely to be overtaken by disaster; for, according to history, such a tendency among nations once powerful was the sure precursor of ruin.

--Signed by First Presidency and Twelve Apostles, 1875

"Corporations have been enthroned.... An era of corruption in high places will follow and the money power will endeavor to prolong its reign by working on the prejudices of the people...until wealth is aggregate in a few hands...and the Republic is destroyed."

--- Abraham Lincoln, 1865


Your typical Post-Benson Utah Mormon conservative is diametrically opposed to these statements.

 

[babe]

Using government to break down the imbalances created by wealth.

Then:

--Brigham Young, 1855

--Signed by First Presidency and Twelve Apostles, 1875

--- Abraham Lincoln, 1865


Your typical Post-Benson Utah Mormon conservative is diametrically opposed to these statements.

Franklin, this is the best contribution I've ever seen in this or any other forum.

Mormonism has undergone a great change since the LDS Church allied itself with the bankers Chase and Morgan over a hundred years ago. Prior to that, it was economically "socialist" in some respects, though not willing to submit itself to Federal management. It encouraged cooperative and united solutions to practical and economic problems, while allowing the enterprising folks the privilege of their own business as well.

In the early 1900s, the likes of Heber J. Grant preached that the NY bankers were noble men and fine examples we should strive to equal. . . . Free Enterprise replacing Virtue as the great mainstream of Human Progress.

 

[franklin]

I'm aware of your feelings regarding changes in Mormonism and didn't mean for this to turn into a religious bashing session. I don't see how you can't respect a community who by and large promote industry, self reliance, and effective, community based charity. I can also sympathize with the fears of government creep into more and more facets of our lives while promoting laziness and instability.

With that said, I think the current crop in Utah are misguided in their anti-government fervor. There's some cognitive dissonance that takes too much thought for busy and productive people to get over, and good on them for it, really.

 

[jazzlurker]

I have known hatch for the last decade... I swear Utah does not know how lucky they are to have him. Lee is a joke and has no credibility at all. Hatch is good for Utah.

 

[babe]

I'm aware of your feelings regarding changes in Mormonism and didn't mean for this to turn into a religious bashing session. I don't see how you can't respect a community who by and large promote industry, self reliance, and effective, community based charity. I can also sympathize with the fears of government creep into more and more facets of our lives while promoting laziness and instability.

With that said, I think the current crop in Utah are misguided in their anti-government fervor. There's some cognitive dissonance that takes too much thought for busy and productive people to get over, and good on them for it, really.

Franklin, it's not religious bashing to expose hypocrites for their irreligiosity. whoever they are. I don't have a problem with the Christianity as expounded by Christ. And it's not "fears of government" but simple recognition of the evil principles that underlie bad governance, or bad religious policy or doctrine. And the cognitive dissonance I see in ardent LDS advocates of original US Constitutional intents and the ideals of human liberty is in fact tragic for those who can't cope with the contradictions now present in their circumstances.

It's time for the the LDS people to see the situation for what it is.

Early LDS teachings, as per Joseph Smith, could be seen as tenets of grace and tolerance, with a remarkable lack of ideological imperatives that in human hands can often stunt the humanity of human souls. The Word of Wisdom was advice, not strict command. . . . old doctrines were being looked at in new light generally. . . . dogma was not the "original intent" of Mormonism. Mormons could voluntarily unite in meeting the needs of any day, and in large measure retain their wealth and/or their control of their lives. That is a form of socialism our modern progressives and elitist governance intellectuals have failed to understand or implement. Mormons could, from day to day voice completely opposite opinions and not get called out on it. . . . In short, they were free people who could think for themselves, and resort to practical solutions for any crisis. Not ideological or doctrinal morons stuck on stupid abuses of sometimes inappropriate applications of otherwise useful ideas.

thus LDS leaders have been on record for lots of kindly-meant opinions addressing some aspect of then-existing needs. . . . if you look at them as articles of a catechism and expect Mormons to strictly avoid all contradictions you're never going to get Mormons right, at least in the old days. Today, the whole project of the "correlation committee" is rubbing against that liberty within the Church, as do the policy manuals of the past fifty years . . . . though I consider the recent changes in those instructions to be a refreshing rebirth of liberty and good sense.

In regard to your ideas about redistribution of wealth, as enjoined by BY and others. . . . it was something BY did not practice as he preached. At his death, he left substantial "Church" property, as for example, the Temple block, in the hands of his children, whom he intended to continue in a dynastic rule. Exhortations towards consecration, and experiments in "United Order" economics, were plagued by leadership that often had the practical result of concentration of wealth in the hands of management elites. . . . while many others suffered extreme deprivation. . . . just like is seen today in some of the apostate groups who claim to practice these ideals.

The plain fact is that sentimental expressions of ideals and practical solutions to problems in any day will give rise to variance. . . . to cognitive dissonance. . . . while folks don't deal with the inconsistencies of the situation. And LDS exhortations have always been better understood as pleas for individuals to make choices, not as orders from leadership that must be absolutely obeyed. And LDS leadership has always been clearly failing in practice of what they preach. And none of these proofs of humanity among Mormons has any real significance as proofs against the faith.

 

[babe]

I have known hatch for the last decade... I swear Utah does not know how lucky they are to have him. Lee is a joke and has no credibility at all. Hatch is good for Utah.

I have known Hatch for four decades. I knew him as dishonest from the start. He boasts of the new data center at Camp Williams as a "plum" he has given us. He is a disgrace to Mormons and Utah. And, no, when he faces his Maker, he won't get way with any claim that he was just stupid.

 

[TroutBum]

Wow, Hopper is on a roll.

 

[PearlWatson]

Using government to break down the imbalances created by wealth.

Then:

--Brigham Young, 1855

--Signed by First Presidency and Twelve Apostles, 1875

--- Abraham Lincoln, 1865


Your typical Post-Benson Utah Mormon conservative is diametrically opposed to these statements.

The first quote had to do with church authority in the Utah Territory when separated from any nation, no?

The second quote seems to fit as opposition. It addresses "measures," to stop the accumulation of riches in the hands of a few, but a lot depends on what they mean by those "measures." Also Benson is anti-communism while recognizing that those who are in charge of communism ain't going to be redistributing their own wealth, so it could just be they are on the same side of the equation.

Abraham Lincoln ain't a Mormon unless you count posthumously.

No Joseph Smith quotes to outline his "platform?" He even ran for president.

 

[PearlWatson]

oink oink oink... Also, when have I ever claimed that I'm a good spokesman for the LDS church? Here's a hint: Never.
Oink oink oink...
So, does having multiple accounts count as being "two faced"? And how exactly does one go about facilitating a bully? I assume you're talking about innerweb bullies, right?
oink oink oink...

You make Mormons look worse than Thriller ever could. You represent Mormons whether officially or not.

How do you facilitate a bully? You support, defend, or protect him. You may allow them to continue their bullying when you have the power to stop it or even join in with them.

I meant the standard definition, but that works too.

 

[Gameface]

You make Mormons look worse than Thriller ever could. You represent Mormons whether officially or not.

How do you facilitate a bully? You support, defend, or protect him. You may allow them to continue their bullying when you have the power to stop it or even join in with them.

I meant the standard definition, but that works too.

I feel like this is unbelievably unfair. Saying Trout represents all of Mormondom is like saying Osama Bin Laden represents all of Islam.

 

[babe]

I feel like this is unbelievably unfair. Saying Trout represents all of Mormondom is like saying Osama Bin Laden represents all of Islam.

statisticians try hard to make perfectly random selections of "representatives" of the group or class they are trying to describe. In an extreme limit, it is mathematically valid to take one example as the analytical set, and use that example as the descriptor of the whole set. However, in good CYA form, they have a second measure of the data. . . . called the variance, or confidence parameters which they use to describe how representative that statistic is. With one data point, the variance is infinite. Therefore, the statistic is virtually worthless, mathematically speaking.

however we humans using what we call common sense are often perfectly willing to make grandly confident assertions not only on one lone real anecdotal observation, but often on an imagined one.

Personally, I feel trout has no room to complain on this one. turnabout is generally considered fair play. I suspect though that he doesn't mind. He's a star, you know, who can afford to say "I don't care what you say about me as long as you spell my name right."

However, I think a large data set would indeed show Trout to be well within the norm of Mormonism with a 1-sigma confidence limit, meaning in the center 67% of the class. And while he plays hard here, I think it is meant for fun. Pearl, that oyster you're in is going to produce a very fine pearl in time, as long as you're this sensitive.

 

[babe]

The first quote had to do with church authority in the Utah Territory when separated from any nation, no?

The second quote seems to fit as opposition. It addresses "measures," to stop the accumulation of riches in the hands of a few, but a lot depends on what they mean by those "measures." Also Benson is anti-communism while recognizing that those who are in charge of communism ain't going to be redistributing their own wealth, so it could just be they are on the same side of the equation.

Abraham Lincoln ain't a Mormon unless you count posthumously.

No Joseph Smith quotes to outline his "platform?" He even ran for president.

A thorough study of LDS authorities will produce a lot of sentiments spoken from pulpits over the years. It is true that the populist notions of communal economics have not gotten much air in recent times, and that there is too much social shock and awe held out for financial giants in the ranks of the members, and that financial success is the most important qualifier in Mormondom for theological authority nowadays.

But the Lord told Joseph Smith not to get into financial operations, and when he did, he failed miserably, and to his credit he spent the rest of his life trying to pay back the folks who suffered from his ill-advised project. However, his speeches as a politician were not considered theological revelations, just practical proposals for solving current issues. It would have been extremely ill-advised for a politician in that day to speak for financial institutions or interests to the exclusion of the needs of the common folks. So you should expect to find many statements in the records, if they can be found, advocating against the interests of the very rich and very powerful.

Too bad there isn't anyone in the LDS leadership today that will do the same.

 

[PearlWatson]

I feel like this is unbelievably unfair. Saying Trout represents all of Mormondom is like saying Osama Bin Laden represents all of Islam.

Interesting parallel. Osama did tarnish Islam whether non-violent Muslims think it is fair or not.

You reported Thriller for calling you "weak minded" or something similar, yet your friend Snout makes similar insults daily and you are just fine with it because it aint directed at you.
They both try to defend their religion in very piggish ways, but when Snout hypocritically goes after Thriller for being a bad representation of Mormondom you didn't say a word.
You can't see the double standard?

 

[PearlWatson]

statisticians try hard to make perfectly random selections of "representatives" of the group or class they are trying to describe. In an extreme limit, it is mathematically valid to take one example as the analytical set, and use that example as the descriptor of the whole set. However, in good CYA form, they have a second measure of the data. . . . called the variance, or confidence parameters which they use to describe how representative that statistic is. With one data point, the variance is infinite. Therefore, the statistic is virtually worthless, mathematically speaking.

however we humans using what we call common sense are often perfectly willing to make grandly confident assertions not only on one lone real anecdotal observation, but often on an imagined one.

Personally, I feel trout has no room to complain on this one. turnabout is generally considered fair play. I suspect though that he doesn't mind. He's a star, you know, who can afford to say "I don't care what you say about me as long as you spell my name right."

However, I think a large data set would indeed show Trout to be well within the norm of Mormonism with a 1-sigma confidence limit, meaning in the center 67% of the class. And while he plays hard here, I think it is meant for fun. Pearl, that oyster you're in is going to produce a very fine pearl in time, as long as you're this sensitive.

Isn't saying and doing rude things for the fun of it the very definition of a bully?
God can't see what you do on the internet, though.

 

[Gameface]

Interesting parallel. Osama did tarnish Islam whether non-violent Muslims think it is fair or not.

You reported Thriller for calling you "weak minded" or something similar, yet your friend Snout makes similar insults daily and you are just fine with it because it aint directed at you.
They both try to defend their religion in very piggish ways, but when Snout hypocritically goes after Thriller for being a bad representation of Mormondom you didn't say a word.
You can't see the double standard?

That was actually intended as a joke. I guess it wasn't funny and/or no one got it.

I've never heard Trout espousing on the virtues of practicing LDS faith as he does. I've never heard him criticize anyone for having different religious beliefs than him or for how others practice their religious beliefs or lack thereof. What I have heard is that as a result of very significant personal experiences he has faith in a higher power. Not in a way where he uses his experience to prove to me or you or anyone else that we must accept his beliefs as our own, just as a way of explaining how he has come to have faith. I have a lot of respect for the way he handles himself in that regard.

So now go ahead and quote several dozen jokes he's made that are disrespectful of other's faith then gloat about how you've torn me a new *******. I live for that ****.

 

[PearlWatson]

A thorough study of LDS authorities will produce a lot of sentiments spoken from pulpits over the years. It is true that the populist notions of communal economics have not gotten much air in recent times, and that there is too much social shock and awe held out for financial giants in the ranks of the members, and that financial success is the most important qualifier in Mormondom for theological authority nowadays.

But the Lord told Joseph Smith not to get into financial operations, and when he did, he failed miserably, and to his credit he spent the rest of his life trying to pay back the folks who suffered from his ill-advised project. However, his speeches as a politician were not considered theological revelations, just practical proposals for solving current issues. It would have been extremely ill-advised for a politician in that day to speak for financial institutions or interests to the exclusion of the needs of the common folks. So you should expect to find many statements in the records, if they can be found, advocating against the interests of the very rich and very powerful.

Too bad there isn't anyone in the LDS leadership today that will do the same.

To be fair financial success for church leaders is important for practical reasons. Success in business does give them the ability and skill development to lead a church.

I did some reading into Joseph Smith's platform. The best part is when he rips Martin Van Buren a new hole for his stance on slavery, but there are a few parts dealing with economy/finance.
He sounds a lot more like Benson than in opposition to him. He mentions "discouraging luxury," but in reference to government not individuals:

Unity is power, and when I reflect on the importance of it to the stability of all

governments, I am astounded at the silly moves of persons and parties, to foment

discord in order to ride into power on the current of popular excitement; nor am I

less surprised at the stretches of power, or restrictions of right, which too often

appear as acts of legislators, to pave the way to some favorite political schemes, as

destitute of intrinsic merit, as a wolf's heart is of the milk of human kindness; a

Frenchman would say, "prosque tot aimer richesses et pouvoir;" (almost all men like

wealth and power.)
I must dwell on this subject longer than others, for nearly one hundred years ago that

golden patriot, Benjamin Franklin drew up a plan of union for the then colonies of

Great Britain that now are such an independent nation, which among many wise

provisions for obedient children under their father's more rugged hand,- thus; "they

have power to make laws, and lay and levy such general duties, imports, or taxes, as

to them shall appear most equal and just (considering the ability and other

circumstances of the inhabitants in the several colonies,) and such as may be

collected with the least inconvenience to the people; rather discouraging luxury, than

loading industry with unnecessary burthens." Great Britain surely lacked the laudable

humanity and fostering clemency to grant such a just plan of union - but the sentiment

remains like the land that honored its birth as a pattern for wise men to study the

convenience of the people more than the comfort of the cabinet.

He makes several predictions/prophecies here, one having to do with "great men" smuggling a fortune at one fell swoop:

Speculators will urge a national bank as a savior of credit and comfort.

A hireling pseudo priesthood will plausibly push abolition doctrines and doings, and

"human rights," into Congress and into every other place, where conquest smells of

fame, or opposition swells to popularity,...

A Still higher grade, of what the "nobility of the nations" call "great men," will

dally with all rights in order to smuggle a fortune at "one fell swoop;" mortgage

Texas, posess Oregon, and claim all the unsettled regions of the world for hunting and

trapping; and should a humble honest man, red, black, or white, exhibit a better

title, these gentry have only to clothe the judge with richer ermine, and spangle the

lawyer's fingers with finer rings, to have the judgement of his peers, and the honor

of his lords, as a pattern of honesty, virtue and humanity, while the motto hangs on

his nation's escutcheon; "Every man has his price!"

This one talks about economy in government so there can be less taxes:

More economy in the nation and state; would make less taxes among the people; more

equality through the cities, towns and country, would make less distinction among the

people; and more honesty and familiarity in societies, would make less hypocrisy and

flattery in all branches of community; and open, frank, candid, decorum to all men, in

this boasted land of liberty, would be beget esteem, confidence, union and love; and

the neighbor from any state, or from any country, of whatever color, clime or tongue,

could rejoice when he put his foot on the sacred soil of freedom, and exclaim; the

very name of "America," is fraught with friendship!

He shares my view of banking practices here:

For the accommadation of the people in every state and territory, let Congress shew

their wisdom by granting a national bank, with branches in each state and territory,

where the capital stock shall be held by the nation for the mother bank; and by the

states and territories, for the branches; and whose officers and directors shall be

elected yearly by the people with wages at the rate of two dollars per day for

services; which several banks shall never issue any more bills than the amount of

capital stock in her vaults and the interest. The nett gain of the mother bank shall

be applied the national revenue, and that of the branches to the states and

territories' revenues. And the bills shall be par throughout the nation, which will

mercifully cure that fatal disorder known in cities, as brokerage; and leave the

people's money in their own pockets.

This one mentions "speculating bankers or brokers" but not in tearing them down, but building the common people's security up:

Seventy years have done much for this goodly land; they have burst the chains of

oppression and monarch; and multiplied its inhabitants from two to twenty meillions;

with proportionate share of knowledge; keen enough to circumnavigate the globe; draw

the lightning from the clouds; and cope with all the crowned heads of the world. Then

why? Oh! why! will a once flourishing people not arise, pheonix like, over the

cinders of Martin Van Buren's power; and over the sinking fragments and smoking ruins

of other catamount politicians; and over the windfalls of Benton, Calhoun, Clay,

Wright, and a caravan of other equally unfortunate law debtors and cheerfully help to

spread a plaster and bind up the burnt, bleeding wounds of a sore but blessed country?

The southern people are hospitable and noble; they will help to rid so free a country

of every vestige of slavery, when ever they are assured of an equivalent for their

property. The country will be full of money and confidence, when a national bank of

twenty millions, and a state bank in every state, with a million or more, gives a tone

to monetary matters, and make a circulating medium as valuable in the purses of a

whole community, as in the coffers of a speculating banker or broker. the people may

have faults but they never should be trifled with.

 

[PearlWatson]

That was actually intended as a joke. I guess it wasn't funny and/or no one got it.

I've never heard Trout espousing on the virtues of practicing LDS faith as he does. I've never heard him criticize anyone for having different religious beliefs than him or for how others practice their religious beliefs or lack thereof. What I have heard is that as a result of very significant personal experiences he has faith in a higher power. Not in a way where he uses his experience to prove to me or you or anyone else that we must accept his beliefs as our own, just as a way of explaining how he has come to have faith. I have a lot of respect for the way he handles himself in that regard.

So now go ahead and quote several dozen jokes he's made that are disrespectful of other's faith then gloat about how you've torn me a new *******. I live for that ****.

What do you mean by "that?" The Osama thing was a joke or this quote was some kind of inside joke?:

I read the first sentence. I'm not interested in discussing anything with you. I reported your previous personal attack and I will report any post or rep comment you make in which you throw around childish insults at me. Have a nice life.

You seem to be defending something I never said occurred.
Maybe if you read my post again you could understand what I'm saying, I'm just failing to get my meaning across, or you don't care to understand where I'm coming from.

 

[Gameface]

What do you mean by "that?" The Osama thing was a joke or this quote was some kind of inside joke?:



You seem to be defending something I never said occurred.
Maybe if you read my post again you could understand what I'm saying, I'm just failing to get my meaning across, or you don't care to understand where I'm coming from.

I'm not sure why you quoted that last thing. Thriller was intentionally antagonizing me and gloating about proving points about what I said even though I admitted up front before he even questioned me the things he was so happy to claim victory over. He then went beyond the opinion I expressed and called me names (I'm not going to go back and look) based on the fact that I hadn't substantiated my opinions to his satisfaction. In fact, he was insistent that I was asserting that a grand conspiracy had taken place within the LDS church in which as an organization the LDS church had selected the winner of the primary and used their members votes at the churches direct discretion. When in fact what I had said was that I don't participate in local elections because I figure whomever the influential power brokers within the LDS faith (not necessarily holding official positions within the church) decide would get the support (see OneBrow's post) needed to win would in fact eventually win.

So, I reported Thriller for calling me names in a malicious way. I'll do it again if he calls me names again. I like thriller less than any other poster who has ever posted here. In the few exchanges I've had with him he gets hyper freaked out and demands I satisfy some criteria he has (that I usually don't think even matters) while neg repping me with statements about how bad he's embarassing me in the thread and how stupid I must feel that it was so easy for him to make me look foolish.

My "joke" was saying Trout was like Osama Bin Laden and appealing for sympathy for Trout based on that comparison. Yeah, not funny I guess.