Video yükleniyor...
Video Yüklenemedi
🔴 سوريا… وطن يختنق بصمت.. الوضع الكارثي بلغ حدًّا لا يُطاق، حتى صار المواطن يصرخ للعالم: “أنقذونا.” 🗣️ أحدهم قال: “الدودة التي في الأرض تعيش أفضل منا… على الأقل تجد قوتها بلا إذلال.” 🗣️ آخر صرخ: “نسيت لون اللحمة! لم أرها منذ سنوات.” هذه ليست شكاوى عابرة، بل نداء... show more
21,972 görüntüleme • 11 ay önce •via X (Twitter)
0 Yorum
Yorum bulunmuyor
Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek
![Clive Lewis's Water Bill - bringing water back to the people 💯 Please watch, listen or read this transcript. Because this is the sort of leadership Labour needs 👏 Clive Lewis MP He even calls for PR 👏 Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) Margaret Thatcher’s revolution tore up the rulebook on political and economic management. She rewrote it with a single unwavering principle: that the pursuit of profit would serve the public good, even when it came to vital public services—even when it came to water. We often say that society stands on the shoulders of giants, but giants cast long shadows, and Thatcherism’s shadow looms dark over our water system today. Whether we see ourselves standing on her shoulders or trapped in her shadow, one thing is undeniable: she proved that the world can be made differently. And if it can be made differently once, it can be made differently again. That, as the brilliant anthropologist David Graeber understood, is the hidden truth of the world. It is something we create and can choose to create anew. We can do it better. Today, I want to show this House and this country that water is the lens through which we can imagine something better—a better way of running our economy, a better way of safeguarding our environment and a better way of empowering the public, for whom democracy supposedly exists. But that requires something very difficult: it requires us to break free from the constraints of our imagination and to let go of the idea that this economic model is all there is or all there ever could be. It saddens me to say that the Government’s Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 perfectly exemplifies this failure of imagination. One of its leading proponents has a particular rhetorical flourish they love to use when dismissing calls for public ownership of water. They say, “I’m more interested in the purity of our water than the purity of our ideology.” I love that quote. I love it because it lays bare just how deeply the ideology of privatisation, and all that goes with it, has embedded itself. So entrenched is it within our collective consciousness that we no longer recognise it as an ideology. We no longer see it for what it is: a systemic exploitation of a common resource for private gain. Instead, it has simply become the natural order of things. But how much longer can this go on? Since the crash of 2008, this ideology has been faltering under the weight of its own contradictions, yet its grip on British politics remains vice-like. Austerity, exploitation and corporate price gouging are still treated not as choices but as inevitabilities. Why? Because too many politicians on both sides of the House refuse to contemplate alternatives. For those on the other side of the House—on the Opposition Benches—I get it: this is their ideology. They are defending their class, and I would imagine they would go further still if they could. But on this side of the House, we have no excuse. We should be standing up for our class: working-class people—the public. Instead, we wrap their ideology in the language of fiscal responsibility, economic prudence and stewardship of the economy. But it is not fiscal responsibility when we balance the books on broken backs. It is not stewardship when the ship has been sold off and the crew left to drown. It is not prudence. It is power maintenance. Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab) I hope the engineers can check that the microphones and speakers are working while I ask a quick question. My hon. Friend mentions Members on this side of the House. There are far more of us on this side since July last year than there were in 2019, with a very different approach taken in our manifestos. Does he fear that the shift in tone he is suggesting is one of the reasons that we did so badly in 2019 but so well last year? Clive Lewis No, I do not. We have a distorted electoral system. Bring on proportional representation, because if we had PR, we would have had a different Government in 2019 and most definitely in 2017. Sometimes politicians have to do what they believe to be right and lead from the front. I think we should lead from the front. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) I compliment the hon. Member on his Bill. To help his argument, there was overwhelming opinion poll support for public ownership of water in 2017 and 2019, and there still is today. Clive Lewis I thank the right hon. Member for his point. I will come on to this later, and I hope other Members will pick up on it, but the fact that the public are way ahead of this House on the issue of public ownership is one of the reasons why so many people are losing faith in the two-party political system. One only has to look at some political parties whose Members are not in their place—at the Reform party, for example, which has a policy of public ownership of water. Yes, its Members will privatise the NHS, but they understand how popular this is, and they are ahead of the curve—they are ahead of us on this side. Neil Coyle Really? Clive Lewis On the issue of water, yes, I would say they are, because whether I like it or not, Reform has a policy for water to be owned 50% by pension companies and 50% by the public. As much as it grieves me to say it, that is a policy of public ownership. They are populist; they are listening to a popular voice. Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab) Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis I will make some progress and then give way, and I will also try to keep the volume down a little bit. This is about the maintenance of a political and economic model that was never built to serve the public—a model designed to shield the wealth of asset holders, landlords, shareholders, corporations and, yes, privatised water companies. But here is the great irony: the very greed, recklessness and contempt of the water industry—its excesses—have cracked open the door, and through that crack, we glimpse an opportunity. It is an opportunity to shatter the myth of privatisation’s inevitability, to break free from the narrow, self-imposed rules that have caged our Government’s economic choices, to expose its failures, to challenge its dominance and, above all, to show this country that there is an alternative—an alternative that is democratic, sustainable and run in the interests of the many, not the few. We can do it better. Mr Frith My hon. Friend is making a typically impassioned speech. He says the general public are ahead of us. Where might that same public be when faced with the bill for bringing in the nationalisation he is clearly wedded to? Furthermore, in the event that we do not have to buy the water industry but seize it, the implications of that seizure will cause an economic collapse. At what point will he take responsibility for either of those scenarios when confronting a public who are, he says, ahead of us on this issue? Clive Lewis I will obviously come to many of those points later in my speech, but let me make this point now: I do not believe in nationalisation, and this Bill has nothing to do with nationalisation. This is about giving the public a say over their water. It is about governance, standards and democracy. Mr Frith Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis No, my hon. Friend has made his point. Mr Frith On this point? Clive Lewis No, I am going to carry on and make some progress. You made your point. Let the public— Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani) Order. Mr Lewis, I do not believe I was making a point at all. Clive Lewis My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker; I should have said that my hon. Friend made his point. The clock is ticking. The climate crisis is no longer a distant warning. It is our lived reality. Rising droughts, creeping desertification, depleted aquifers, wildfires, systemic collapse—these are no longer projections; they are the forecast turned fact. Preparing for this future and adapting to what is now inevitable has never been more urgent. The evidence is sobering. The UK’s water resources are under mounting pressure and not just from the climate emergency, but from rising demand and population growth. Experts now project that England could face significant water supply deficits as early as 2034 unless we act decisively. That is not a distant horizon; it is a little over a decade away. But while the threat has grown, our resilience has shrunk, because while the climate crisis has intensified, our water infrastructure has stood still, or, worse, been sold off, hollowed out and left to rot. In the 35 years before privatisation almost 100 reservoirs were built; in the 35 years since privatisation, not one major English reservoir has been built. But it gets worse, because in that same period private water companies have sold off 25 reservoirs without replacing one. Instead of investing in resilience, they have extracted value: £72 billion paid out in dividends while pipes leak, rivers choke, and the public pays the price. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) asks how we can afford it; how can we not afford it? That is not mismanagement; it is a betrayal. If scientists tell us the climate crisis is an existential threat to humanity and to this country— Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis One second. If scientists tell us the climate crisis is an existential threat to humanity and to this country, we must treat it as such: an existential conflict. In that context, the actions of these companies—selling off reservoirs, failing to invest, polluting our water—are not just negligent; they are acts that actively undermine our national water security. In any other existential crisis, we might call that what it is: sabotage. And in a time of national peril, sabotage has another name: treason. Let me explain why this matters to me personally. When I served on tour in Afghanistan back in 2009—not in a boy band—I experienced something utterly alien to me: the gnawing fear of thirst; not the mild irritation of forgetting a water bottle, but the deep physical worry that there may not be enough clean water to get through the day. In Britain, we have been blessed: water falls from the sky; it fills our rivers, it soaks our fields, and we joke about it—it is part of who we are. But in Afghanistan there was no humour; only heat, dust and desperation. There I saw children trekking miles through the desert, not for food, not for money, but to beg for clean bottled water. Once we have seen that, and once we have felt that fear, we can never take water for granted again. We never again believe it is something we can waste or pollute or privatise without consequence. That is why I have brought forward this Bill: because anger is not enough; outrage, no matter how justified, will not fix the pipes, stop the sewage or fill the reservoirs. We need a plan. We need a strategy. We need a future. We can do it better. My Water Bill delivers that. It sets out the high standards our country deserves and the democratic governance our water system desperately needs. First, it establishes clear, ambitious targets to stop the sewage in our rivers and on our beaches, to restore our water to high ecological and chemical standards, and to deliver universal, affordable access to water as a basic human right—a right we have never had before in this country. It demands a system designed not just to extract profit but to adapt, to build resilience in the face of climate change, and to harness nature-based solutions that work with the environment, not against it. Secondly, it transforms governance. The Bill introduces representation for workers and local communities on the boards of water companies. It gives voting rights to employees and customers, so that those who use and maintain a system have a real say in how it is run. Water is not a commodity but a common good, and those who depend on it and pay for it should help govern it. Thirdly, the Bill lays the foundations for a democratic future. It establishes a commission on water ownership to advise the Secretary of State on long-term strategy, looking at international best practice, especially in OECD countries, where public water ownership is the norm, not the exception. Crucially, it creates a citizens assembly on water ownership to bring the public into the process, to deliberate, debate and decide how we can govern this most precious of resources. The public care, but how do I know that? I know because a small fraction of them are in the Public Gallery today, having travelled here from all over the country; I know because of the thousands of emails that have been sent to MPs across the House; and I know because those people will never stop campaigning until this injustice is resolved. They know that we can protect something not by selling it off, but by standing up for it, involving people in its care and ensuring that it serves the public, today, tomorrow and for generations to come. My Bill offers a pathway out of crisis. It offers control, resilience and democracy. It is not just about cleaning up our rivers, but about cleaning up the system that allowed them to be polluted in the first place. Privatisation is not just a problem—it is the problem. We can do it better. I can hear some people on the Labour Benches thinking, “But we have just passed”— Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab) You can hear thinking? Clive Lewis I can now—for my next trick, I can hear thinking! I can hear them thinking, “But we have just passed the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, Clive, so what are you talking about?” Yes, we have, but I am afraid to say it has been watered down—[Interruption.] Sorry, I had to get that one in—it was all going so well. The Act does not live up to what was promised, it does not deliver what is needed, and it certainly does not live up to its name. Do not get me wrong: it is a start. Grahame Morris I congratulate my good and hon. Friend on making an excellent speech and on advocating for public ownership of water and the opportunity to make things better. Does he agree that the mismanagement of the water companies under privatisation is a huge indictment of the whole principle? In my area, bills are way above inflation and huge dividends are being paid by borrowing money. At the very least, should our Government not be looking at stopping the payment of bonuses and share dividends while sewage pollution continues, and we have appalling mismanagement of the industry? Clive Lewis I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I agree with him wholeheartedly and I am just about to come to that point in relation to what the Water (Special Measures) Act does and does not do. It addresses some of those points, but as we have already discussed, privatisation is not just a problem, but the problem, and it is a big part of why so much has gone wrong. Unfortunately, the Water (Special Measures) Act does not live up to what was promised or what is needed, and it certainly does not live up to its name. However, it is a start, and I praise my colleagues on the Front Bench, including the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), who has done so much work in this area. Unfortunately, the Act is not a solution. Remarkably, my Government’s Water (Special Measures) Act does not even define what clean water means. There are no standards or targets—just vague intentions handed over once again to a regulatory system that has already failed us and to the companies that caused the mess in the first place. It says nothing about better governance, and absolutely nothing about the big, fat, humongous elephant in the room: who owns our water? If we do not deal with ownership, we cannot deal with accountability. If we cannot deal with accountability, we can forget clean water. No—we must go further on clean water standards, corporate accountability and what happens when companies fail. Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab) Does my hon. and gallant Friend accept that there is increased accountability in the Water (Special Measures) Act through the fact that many companies in the industry are now rewriting their articles of association to ensure that they are accountable not just to shareholders, but to the customers and users of water? Clive Lewis After 35 years of abject failure, it is too little, too late. My Bill would put the final nail in the coffin of this sorry chapter of our country’s water and water system. Neil Coyle Sticking with the puns, I commend my hon. Friend on his gallons of passion; he is always making waves. He criticises the Government’s legislation, which is obviously not yet in effect, but does he think that the Cunliffe commission will go any way towards addressing some of the concerns he has outlined? Clive Lewis Unfortunately, I do not, because again the elephant in the room—who owns our water—has been ruled out of the Cunliffe commission’s operational process. It cannot actually look at that issue. I have no issue with Sir Jon Cunliffe, but let us not forget that he originates from the Treasury—he probably has Treasury brain. That economic orthodoxy is part of the reason why we are in the place that we are. I do not have so much confidence in the Cunliffe commission, but I do have far more confidence in the People’s Commission on the Water Sector, which is being run by academics and which will report at the same time. I will be very interested to hear what it says. Neil Coyle Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis Those are the reasons why I have brought forward this Bill. The Government’s Act does none of those things, but my Bill does. Take just one example— Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani) Order. I believe Mr Lewis probably cannot hear interventions, because he is so loud himself. Members should intervene loudly if they wish to intervene. Clive Lewis I did hear the intervention, but I wanted to make some progress. Take this one example. Under this Bill, if a water company breaches the terms of its licence with a major sewage discharge, it can forget shareholder payout and piling on more debt. If it does it twice, it is in the last chance saloon. After three strikes, it is out—licence terminated and on its bike—and those price-gouging, asset-stripping, river-killing vulture capitalist outfits will be rolled into the sunset without a penny in compensation. What about those water infrastructure assets that they have been sweating for private gain? They go back into the public realm, thank you very much. If they start whining about debts, do not worry: we will do a full audit of what they invested, what they racked up in debt, what they paid out in dividends and what they stuffed into bloated executive pay packets. I will tell you this, Madam Deputy Speaker: I am yet to see a single privatised English water company walk away with anything other than a well-earned spanking and a sharp haircut for its creditors. Those assets will belong to the public once again, and we will not pay a penny more than they are worth. I can hear people thinking, “Where will the money come from? How will you invest in publicly owned water without the private sector?” I will tell them where it has not come from in these past 35 years—I am mind-reading again. Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab) Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis I will just make some progress, and then I will give way. I am on a roll. Let me tell the House where the money has not come from for these past 35 years. It has not come from private shareholders or long-term thinking, and it certainly has not come from some mythical well of benevolent capitalism. The private companies have put in less than nothing; in fact, they have racked up more than £60 billion in debt. Thames Water has paid more than £7.2 billion in dividends since privatisation, and is now £15.2 billion in debt and counting—work that out. Now, it is trying to plug the hole with a £3 billion emergency loan that will cost 10% in annual interest. That is more than half a billion pounds a year, just for interest payments, courtesy of our bills. That money will not build a reservoir, fix a pipe or clean a river, but it will keep a rotten system afloat for a little longer. Noah Law My hon. and gallant Friend makes an impassioned case for public ownership—something that, in the right context, I am sure Members on all sides of the House can celebrate. On the point about the cost of financing to the public, though, does he agree that while there are some serious indiscretions in parts of the industry, such as in Thames Water’s case, this conversation about the appropriate financing model would be better entertained at a time when the cost of capital in the private water industry was not lower than the cost of public sector borrowing, on which, of course, we are in a very difficult situation? Clive Lewis The cheapest borrowing in the country, without a doubt, is public sector borrowing. The private water industry, which has had 35 years to sort this mess out, is not going to find investment. It is up to its eyeballs in debt. It is relying on a 50% increase in our bills by 2030, if we include inflation, and that is in the middle of a cost of living crisis. How can we justify that? The answer is that we cannot. Mr Frith The day after the seizure of public assets that my hon. Friend is describing, billions and billions of pounds of debt will come with it. What does he propose to do with that debt, other than refinancing, which is exactly where we are at now with the industry requirement to refinance the debt to try to keep bills down? Instead, he is advocating that the public purse take on that private debt. Clive Lewis At the beginning of my now seemingly rather long speech, I think I referred to a failure of imagination. Ask what Margaret Thatcher would have done when she was faced with similar problems. She would have fought her way through it. She changed the very fabric of our economy, our democracy and our politics, and she made it work. We can do the same, because the public are behind us. They want this to work. Mr Frith rose— Mark Ferguson rose— Clive Lewis I will make some progress. Let us recap, because I do not want to go on too long; I want to conclude, if I can. That money from Thames Water—that half a billion pounds in interest payments—will keep a rotten system afloat for just a little longer. The myth of privatisation is that the private sector will act in the long-term interests of the British public because it wants to turn a profit. That is preposterous, as is proven by the state of our water, and exhibit A is Thames Water. We can now turn to the question of where the investment will come from. Under public ownership, it will come from the only place it ever should have—from us, the public—and every penny of it will go back into the system. It will go into the pipes, the rivers, the seas we swim in and the water we drink. There will be a direct relationship between what we pay and what we get, with no offshore dividends, no bloated bonuses and no debt-laden shell games—just clean, accountable, democratic water. When I was in Afghanistan, every soldier had one critical duty: to stay hydrated. To dehydrate was considered a military offence, because it put the soldier and their team at risk. If someone ran out of water, we did not debate markets or metrics; we shared what we had. We had each other’s backs. As the desert-dwelling Fremen in James Herbert’s novel “Dune” believed: “A man’s flesh is his own; the water belongs to the tribe”. It is time our water returned to the tribe, to the people, to the public. We can do better; we must, and with this Bill, we will. I commend it to the House.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1905614329543532962/amplify_video_thumb/1905612252947865600/img/4N7RnIbeKkSuIXsR.jpg)
![My cousin, Jonathan Ord asked me to teach the Come Follow Me lesson to his mission yesterday over zoom. This is the video I did and the full text. Hi. I am Brad Smith. I have ALS, which is a really weird disease that kills the motor neurons in my body. That means that I lose the connections between my brain and my muscles. My mind is still running at the normal rate. So, I can understand everything you say to me, but I can’t respond very quickly! I am getting faster, though. Last November I was the 3rd person in the world to receive the Neuralink brain implant. So I am controlling this computer with my brain. This is my old voice, recreated by AI from just two hours of me talking to my phone. I have come to see ALS as a calling, and I am trying to magnify it. I used to talk easily, but now I have to choose my words carefully, because it is hard and slow to type what I want to say. I joke that the Lord gave me ALS to get me to shut up. Those who knew me when I could talk laugh the hardest. President Ord is my first cousin. So we share grandma and grandpa Smith. Our grandma Smith was a character. When she taught at church, she would put a sign up that read: “thus saith the lord:” so I will try to keep this within what the Lord has actually said, while trying to teach you to look at a basic principle of the gospel in a different way. Ironically, the first verse of Doctrine & Covenants 93 starts with “Verily, thus saith the Lord”. This is an amazing section of scripture, Jesus Christ telling us to step up and be better! You should study it often. I will start with a story. I asked AI to make a video to dramatically tell the story. During college, I lived in Damascus, Syria, for a semester. It was a fantastic and wonderful experience. I especially loved exploring the Old City of Damascus. The Old City is built around the huge beautiful Umayyad mosque. Within the walls of the old city is a maze of narrow, winding, confusing streets and one really long straight street, as Saul found out in Acts 9:11. One day when a group of us were trying to get through this maze from the mosque to the Christian quarter of the Old City, we asked a man for directions. He thought for a second, then pointed and said, “Go left and then right, and then left and then right, and then left and then right, and then left and right, and you’ll be there.” Aren’t those the most ridiculous directions you have ever heard? We could have ignored him. But, we thought, he did know the city better than we did. So, with some laughter, off we went. Left. Right. Left. Right. And so on until, much to our surprise, we popped out at our destination. Life is a confusing maze. We face difficult choices, unexpected events, surprises, sorrows, opportunities, roadblocks. The Lord has given directions on how to get through to where we want to go. Sometimes the Lord’s directions seem odd, and we may struggle with the decision to follow. The Lord will not force us. It is our choice whether to choose and follow him. Wasn’t that fun? AI is getting crazy! I will be much less entertaining for the rest, but hopefully the spirit will teach you something new. The phrase “keep the commandments” (or “keepeth my commandments”) appears at least 4 times in Doctrine and Covenants Section 93, in verses 1, 20, 27, and 28. There are other references, like “keep my sayings” in 52 and “obeyeth my voice” in 1. So, commandments are really important in this Revelation. I suggest that making the gospel a more central part of our lives depends largely on how we look at commandments. When you think of commandments, do you think “I can’t. I’m Mormon”? (That was a popular T-shirt slogan during my college years.) Although, with the recent guidance from President Nelson, it probably should be “I can’t, I’m a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints”. It’s a common reaction: “Thou shalt not do Cool Things.” People LOVE to focus on all the things we CAN’T do, as if we are trapped and deserve pity for our beliefs. No pity is needed. Commandments are opportunities, not constraints. Commandments are awesome! Allow me to illustrate. Imagine a spectrum between Good and Evil. Somewhere in the middle is “the Line” that divides Good from Evil. As a teenager, I wanted to know where the Line was, so I could get close to it without going over it. I wanted to be on the “Good” side but still be able to do as many “Cool Things" with my friends as possible. From my experience, I believe God gives us two types of commandments: 1) Get Back over the Line commandments and 2) Come Further into the Light commandments. Type 1, the Get Back over the Line commandments, could also be called “Misery Avoidance” commandments. They are designed to keep us out of misery or, if we’ve crossed the Line, to bring us out of misery and back into the Good side. These are generally commandments with a clear and defined point of success, such as “Thou shalt not kill.” You will know, at the end of each day, whether you have successfully followed that commandment. I think all of the Ten Commandments fall into this category. The law of Moses was very black and white. The children of Israel had been in Egypt without a prophet for a long time when Moses received the law, and they needed to work on the basics. So, if you follow the Type 1 commandments, you will refrain from doing things that make you miserable. You will know you are in the Good if you can answer the baptismal interview and temple recommend questions honestly and faithfully. If you can do that, you have taken the basic steps necessary to avoid misery and are on a solid foundation for the next type of commandment. Type 2, the “Come Further into the Light” commandments, are the really cool commandments. Once we are out of the misery category, we can really start to pursue joy. So, God commands us to do things that he knows will make us happier and more like Christ. These commandments are the principles of eternal development, such as “Love thy neighbor” (Matthew 22:39). There is no clear end to loving our neighbor—it requires positive and eternal progression. We can always love more, and we can always find another neighbor who needs our love. It is an eternal principle taught by Jesus Christ. And if we truly love our neighbor, refraining from killing him becomes pretty easy. It is through these commandments that we find joy in Jesus Christ. Elder Christofferson taught about this spectrum in the October 2018 general conference: “Most of us find ourselves at this moment on a continuum between a socially motivated participation in gospel rituals on the one hand and a fully developed, Christlike commitment to the will of God on the other. Somewhere along that continuum, the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ enters into our heart and takes possession of our soul. It may not happen in an instant, but we should all be moving toward that blessed state.” Our goal is to go THAT WAY (toward Christ) as much as possible. So first, get back across the line and stop doing things that will make you miserable. Then make every effort to try and be like Jesus, to “love one another as Jesus loves you.” The gospel of Jesus Christ is more than just “not doing” stuff. It is about coming unto Christ, being perfected in him, and denying ourselves of all ungodliness. Discuss with your companion what commandments and mission rules are for “Misery Avoidance” and which are “Come Further into the Light”! And, remember, commandments are ALWAYS connected to huge blessings. The Lord promised, “There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—and when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated” (Doctrine and Covenants 130:20–21). Whenever we obey any of God’s commandments, we will get the blessing associated with that commandment. Elder David A. Bednar said: “The gospel of Jesus Christ encompasses much more than avoiding, overcoming, and being cleansed from sin and the bad influences in our lives; it also essentially entails doing good, being good, and becoming better. Repenting of our sins and seeking forgiveness are spiritually necessary, and we must always do so. But remission of sin is not the only or even the ultimate purpose of the gospel. To have our hearts changed by the Holy Spirit such that “we have no more disposition to do evil, but to do good continually” (Mosiah 5:2), as did King Benjamin’s people, is the covenant responsibility we have accepted. “This mighty change is not simply the result of working harder or developing greater individual discipline. Rather, it is the consequence of a fundamental change in our desires, our motives, and our natures made possible through the Atonement of Christ the Lord. Our spiritual purpose is to overcome both sin and the desire to sin, both the taint and the tyranny of sin.” I LOVE this concept—and as I have paid attention, I feel like apostles are trying to teach us this all the time. Are we listening? Let me repeat what Elder Bednar said. He said that the commandments help us change what we WANT. Why is that important? Remember my teenage desires? I wanted to be as close to the line as possible so I could still look cool for my friends. That is a good example of the “tyranny” of sin. Even though I was not actually sinning (probably because I was afraid of my mother), I still had some small desire to sin. I said, “I can’t. I’m Mormon” with many dramatic sighs. Overcoming the tyranny of sin is getting to the point where the sin no longer looks remotely interesting or fun because we are too busy loving our neighbors and trying to be like Jesus. Elder Dallin H. Oaks said: “The Final Judgment is not just an evaluation of a sum total of good and evil acts—what we have done. It is an acknowledgment of the final effect of our acts and thoughts—what we have become. It is not enough for anyone just to go through the motions. The commandments, ordinances, and covenants of the gospel are not a list of deposits required to be made in some heavenly account. The gospel of Jesus Christ is a plan that shows us how to become what our Heavenly Father desires us to become.” This talk was given when I was on a mission, before most of you were born. It completely changed my perspective on the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is called The Challenge to Become” and I recommend that you study it. When the Lord says keep the commandments, he isn’t just telling us to stop sinning—he wants us to become like Christ and to have joy. Take a moment and think, Where am I on this continuum? Remember that none of us is perfect like the Savior, and we all need to lift one another. That is why we worship together. That is why we have priesthood quorums and the Relief Society, Primary, and youth organizations. The Lord taught us that truth when he said we all have different gifts: “To some is given one [gift], and to some is given another [gift], that all may be profited thereby. To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world. To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful” (Doctrine and Covenants 46:12–14). The Savior is still WAY over there: a thousand miles away somewhere. That is why we have quorums. We all have a long way to go. Let’s link arms and run together. Let me finish by telling a story from my mission to support my testimony of Jesus. Years ago my mission president said something interesting: “Either the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is truly the kingdom of god on the earth... or it is the greatest fraud ever in history.“ It is audacious to claim to be the true Church of Jesus Christ—but let me explain exactly why I know that to be true. I always BELIEVED that I was raised in the gospel of Jesus Christ. My parents taught me well and I felt good following the commandments and studying the scriptures. That led me to serve a mission in Brazil. My turning point of testimony came when I was 20–at least 2/3rds through my mission. We were invited into a house in the “fundos” of a property—a small structure built behind a larger house. The man was polite and allowed us to share our message. As I had done hundreds of times, I shared the story of Joseph Smith, a boy who sought the truth through prayer. I recited Joseph’s own words in response to his prayer: “I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me... When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!" I felt the strongest feeling I had ever experienced—an undeniable confirmation that what I said was true. It hit me in a way I can never forget! I knew that Joseph Smith was truly a prophet, and therefore the Book of Mormon was the word of god. What about the man we were teaching? How had he responded to my life-affirming spiritual experience? He shrugged and politely thanked us for the message. I was stunned. I felt like the windows of heaven opened on me—and he felt nothing. I learned that receiving answers to our prayers is like tuning a radio: not everyone is on the right frequency. For some reason, the Lord decided to broadcast on my frequency that day. I received the undeniable confirmation that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true. I have built on that foundation brick by brick since then. And every time someone has challenged me on Joseph Smith, I go back to that day in Brazil. I know that he was a prophet. My life has been blessed in ridiculously good ways since then. As I have tried to follow Jesus Christ, great things have happened to me. Even my hardest and most frustrating times have turned out to have a purpose. God has upturned my best laid plans over and over. But I look back and realize that I could never have planned any better. With the prophet Nephi I say: “I know that [God] loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things." (1 Nephi 11:17) When I say that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true, that does not mean we have a monopoly on truth. I know Christians and Muslims who teach me to be better—and Members of the church who are far from disciples of Christ. We just have more truth: scriptures, living prophets, ordinances, personal revelation, and answers to many of life’s biggest questions! That is pretty cool. But we can’t be prideful about the truth we have. You have all probably met people to admire both inside and outside of the church. So, I am all in. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true—not a big fraud. And we are all trying to get closer to Christ. I know that Heavenly Father has a plan for me. Life has not been what I expected, but I trust him! I know that Joseph Smith is a prophet of Jesus Christ and that the Book of Mormon is true. This is “intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth. Light and truth forsake that evil one.” With that knowledge, keep the commandments! In the name of Jesus Christ, amen .](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1961133396144656751/amplify_video_thumb/1961127653798547458/img/nIvUNxNHuUcT9YLP.jpg)
![FULL DISCUSSION: Tucker, Botswana, Zimbabwe & Sierra Leone Leaders Clash on China, U.S. and Europe Tucker Carlson: Gentlemen, thank you for doing this. It’s awfully nice of you to do this. I’d just like to go right down the line. Um, and first to you, President Mnangagwa. Again, thanks. In as clear terms as you can, I wonder if you would, um, contrast your experience with China versus the Western powers. Do you think that Zimbabwe and other African countries, to be totally blunt, get a better deal from Chinese investment than they have with Western powers over the past 150 years? President Mnangagwa (Zimbabwe): Well, um, my view is that, um, initially as we became independent, we had, um, most of our development thrust was from the West. But as we evolved, we have also benefited from investment and cooperation from countries like China. But what are... I mean, the basic structure seems the same? Foreign powers extract mineral wealth from various African countries. But do you think that the arrangement that Zimbabwe and other countries currently have with China is better or worse for Zimbabwe than it was under, say, the Brits? President Mnangagwa (Zimbabwe): I think the premises upon which you construct your question... I don’t think is perfect. Yes, Zimbabwe is a sovereign state. And we move on the basis that gives us the best results for our resources. Whether it is relation with the West or the East, what is primarily important is what we ourselves, as an officer, are satisfied with. We don’t need to please the West or please the East. We please ourselves. Tucker Carlson: That seems like a good model for every sovereign country. President Mnangangwa, thank you for this. Do you think that there is a substantial difference? I’m just trying to understand from a Western perspective how the East does business in Africa versus how the West does. It may be too sensitive a topic to talk about out loud, but to the extent you have a view, you can share, would you? President Mnangangwa (Zimbabwe): I’m sure relations cannot be measured country by country. Yes, relations depend on the historical background of countries between one country and another. That’s the base on which relations grow and are nurtured. For us in Zimbabwe, yes, we are a former British colony, but we are very happy with the relations that have now developed with countries like China and so on. Yes, despite being a former British colony. Tucker Carlson: I think this may be one of these topics that's too difficult to talk about in public. Let me just ask you, President Bio, about one of the strengths of your country and the continent, which is its birth rate, which so far surpasses that of any other region in the world, and that seems like a strength. How has your country, Sierra Leone, but also many other countries in Africa, been able to maintain a birth rate at replacement when Europe, the US, Canada, and lots of other parts of the world have not been able to? President Bio (Sierra Leone): Thank you very much. I think, um, we are hard workers, and, uh, we work both in the day and at night. That is such great advice. It is essential to have, uh, young people and to keep the birth rate at the right level so that, uh, there is sustainability in development. What we do today, or as leaders, we provide the enabling environment, provide them with the tools, uh, the young people to navigate the world, which is extremely tough, complicated, and evolving and changing all the time. So it is our responsibility to bear that in mind. We have to plan ahead, be ahead of the curve, to be able to replace accordingly, so that we don’t have a gap in our development process. So we have been busy producing, um, as much as we can, a lot of good people, and we are investing in their education so that they are fit for purpose for a world that is becoming digital and of course going extremely to the edge of technological advancement. Tucker Carlson: If I could just ask a quick follow-up, uh, to you, Mr. President, do you keep track precisely of how many of your young, educated citizens leave and how many stay? Are you thinking hard about how to retain the smartest, most energetic people? President Bio (Sierra Leone): Definitely. Um, in fact, what, uh, my administration did was to make sure that, uh, we provide basic primary and secondary education free of charge to the citizens. Every child born in Sierra Leone, uh, can go to school, be, um, and finish high school without paying a penny. We don’t just provide tuition. We also make sure that we provide other essentials to make it possible for so that nobody has an excuse not to go to school. Because, um, in the 21st century, without education, definitely you can’t make it, and we do not just want to make it at the personal level, family level. We want to grow as a nation. We want to be, um, useful citizens of West Africa, um, the community that I chair today, but we also want to be useful citizens globally, useful citizens that can contribute to the world. So we are taking stock of that, and we are educating them, equipping them, in fact, I call education as an equip—equipment, a navigation equipment in a world that is becoming very, very complicated and complex. Tucker Carlson: Thank you, President Boko. If, as you look at young people in Botswana who are educated and energetic, what’s your pitch to them? What’s your argument to them to stay in Botswana, not go to South Africa, Europe, or the United States? President Boko (Botswana): Young people are generally innovative. They are entrepreneurial. They now have become digital natives. And that presents immense opportunities to them. These opportunities mean they can pretty much operate wherever they are, and they must, as a matter of course, remain within Botswana so that they can then spread their reach and influence to every part of Botswana. And so the opportunities that there are in Botswana, the training, the education, the acquisition of skills, the support, the environment that nurtures them and, uh, feeds and fuels their vitality is what, uh, Botswana offers and what, uh, will power Africa. Africa generally is a very young continent with a median age of 19.3. Botswana's median age is 25. And so with such a population, Africa is poised to rule the world. Tucker Carlson: So what are your plans for the world once you rule it? President Boko (Botswana): To make it fairer, to make it more equitable, to ensure that, uh, intellectual property is internalized in every part of the African continent, that innovation serves humanity, not just a predatory elite, and that everybody can partake equitably and benefit from the fruits of the economy and the vast opportunities that are available in the world. Tucker Carlson: Well, I look forward to being treated fairly under your rule. Thank you. President Mnangagwa, I wonder, you’ve been in the government of Zimbabwe for decades in various roles, including through a very turbulent period where your predecessor famously kicked out the whites and then the economy tanked, and now it’s rising again. I wonder if you would summarize the lessons that your country has learned from that experience. President Mnangagwa (Zimbabwe): I'm not so sure what you have in mind, [clears throat] but let me say, um, our economy has faced challenges. I'm sure you're aware. Yes, Zimbabwe has been under sanctions for decades as a result of us claiming our land from the British and making ourselves independent. Uh, we seized the land and gave it to our people. So sanctions were imposed on us. But in spite of all that, uh, constraint, we have developed, and we are happy that, um, we have developed on our own and we feel very independent. Tucker Carlson: Well, some of the land was seized from people who were born there. Um, so I wonder if there's a lesson about targeting people on the basis of their skin color. Do you think? President Mnangagwa (Zimbabwe): No, land did not belong to a race. It belonged to Zimbabweans. [snorts] [clears throat] So when the colonialists took land from us, time came when we asserted ourselves to take back our land. Those who wanted to have land at the same basis as the African people of Zimbabwe remained. But those who felt superior left. Tucker Carlson: Okay, um, Mr. Bio, I—it does seem like President... Mr. President, that, um, the model of government around the world seems to be changing, or people seem to have lost confidence in democracy. At least in the West, people aren’t quite as keen to promote democracy. Do you notice this? Do you think democracy is in retreat around the world? President Bio (Sierra Leone): I think the world is in transition. Yes, and normally that comes along with instability. I normally refer to it as we are in a state of flux. Yes, we have been told to go democratic, and those who are leading the way or who have been teaching us to be democratic are no longer committed to that method of governance. So we are left to choose. But I still believe that democracy is the best method of governance, choosing who leads, especially liberal democracy, with all the freedoms that go with it so that human rights and other liberties are observed and maintained. We remain committed to democracy, irrespective of the fact that, um, there are now reversals, um, even in Africa, around the world. In fact, these days when you listen to world news and other things, you hardly hear about democracy.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2019024811582718157/amplify_video_thumb/2019019841680646144/img/rCGDLF4XfFqJr0iO.jpg)
