What do they think?

I always wonder when i read or hear something that criticizes something i believe in ( usually politics or religion), how useful it would be to have a dubbed over version responding point by point to everythg that the person says. There are always plenty of responses that address one or two issues in a statement, but i've always observed that the simplest major issues (i.e. the ones that didnt really need a rebuttal) are the ones that get responded to, and there are nearly akways major questions that just get ignored n the response. Is this because there is no good answer? Is this because its a criticism drawn so far out of context it isnt graced witha reply? Is it because it wasnt the most important point to the person writing the rebuttal?

I'd really like to be more politically involved in a positive way right now than i have been - its just been really difficult with the current climqte to feel like anything i write isnt just going to stoke fires of frustration in someone else. I've found it difficult to hold a dialogue in person for mltipel reasons. i'm easily distracted by all sorts of different thoughts so that i never finish a point but move from one to another without really finishing any sngle thought. Also, i usually am usually listeng more to respond than the listen, and so my comments are often off topic or not as complete as i would like them to be. Finally, i'm not usually comfortable "going the distance" with someone else - pushing when a point made by either person seems weak - both because i dont think they really want that and i dont want to back myself into a corner i cant get out of. Its also more helpful to have some time to look things up and find what studies have demonstrated a realistic solution could be.

I dont know if i'l make it through it all, but i'd like to go thrugh obama's speech and point out where i think he got it and where i think he's misrepresenting or oversimplifying the opposing view a esentially, what went through my head when he said it. I would like to be sbe to go cite references for stuff but given the time at hand i'll probaboy just rerence my head and ope to have some n hand studies, etc to reference . That kind of thung is massively time consuming and i dnt have the time to dedicate now, but i hoep to do ts for about 15 min per day and see how far i can get doing that over the next few days. When i'm dne i'll probably ry to pull something of romneys or some other recent issue that's popular n the news - i'm sure there will be plenty coming to us in the future.

Personal and congregational worship?

Deuteronomy 17:18-20

18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: 

19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them: 

20 That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.

This passage emphasizes the importance of scripture study in a time when scriptures were hard to come by. Having the king study them is a great way to ensure that the king doesnt deviate far from serving God.

Is this one reason why kings took on them the responsibility of the people (think: Mosiah and Benjamin's people): Because the people had no scriptures but what they heard during congregational worship? Is congregational worship an ancient practice to provide a way for people to learn the gospel? I think we will always worship together because the gospel teaches us to love others; but it makes me wonder if the purpose of congregational worship anciently was different than today - and if so, what ought it to be today?