Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 08/20/16 in all areas

  1. That is a problem... People want you to you to either embrace it fully and treat it as absolutely normal or you're nothing but a nasty homophobe. They are gambling that our desire to not alienate people in our lives will outweigh our desire to stand up for what's right. Sadly, in many cases it's a successful gamble. What makes it harder is that if you decline to allow an unmarried (but otherwise normal) couple to stay in your home it's usually not questioned because people understand. They don't take it personally. This gay issue is different because gay people are being conditioned to take it personally and to conclude that homophobia is the only possible reason to not embrace them in their lifestyle. That, to me, is the greater tragedy. There's no compromise anymore. They want their way, period, and will punish you by withdrawing from your life if you don't give into their every demand.
    3 points
  2. There is a difference between caring about the lives of others and being stewards. We can do service for others and teach the gospel without having any kind of stewardship over them.
    3 points
  3. That bothers me not in the least. It would not bother me today, as long as they married and both were in their right minds. One of the big things I hate about grtf-welfare schools is that they infantilize children. Admiral David Farragut commanded his first warship at age 14. Benjamin Franklin wrote articles for a fairly large newspaper when he was less than 16 under the pseudonym Prudence Dogood. It's virtually impossible for an adolescent (which didn't even exist back then) to do anything of the sort. So they have regressed back to what we expect of them, which is, essentially, nothing. Lehi
    3 points
  4. No one knows exactly. It is my opinion that the reason is that the JST has served its primary purpose. (See 5 below.) Your question is similar to one antis ask frequently: Why don't you (LDSs) use the JST? There are, to my mind, six reasons for this: 1) We don't own the copyright. That belongs to the CoC. We worked for decades to get permission to use a tiny fraction in foot- and end-notes. 2) We don't need it because it's available with the full text from Herald House (the CoC publisher) and the most important changes in our own edition of the AV as foot- and end-notes. 3) Joseph never finished it (which is your question in a different guise). Some claim he did based on a statement that he had. But this statement is open for interpretation, and, more importantly, refuted by Joseph's own acts. He was still working on it a few weeks before his martyrdom. When the RLDS Publication Committee took the "manuscripts" in hand, they found it "bone tiring work" to prepare an engrossed copy for the printer to work from. The translation process changed about the end of Matthew and Genesis. The first had Joseph read from a large, family-style Bible while his scribe wrote word-for-word the text as Joseph read it from the book itself or from revelation. But that took a long time, and God had him change the process so that Joseph read, but the scribe only wrote the changes, while each made marks on the document before him: Joseph in the Bible, the scribe on the transcript. (These symbols were underlinings, dots in pairs or triples or singles, dashes, and so on and matched.) However, as the Publication Committee discovered, it was not clear what these changes meant. As noted above, the Prophet was still working on it right up until his death. This he did by pinning scraps of paper to the manuscript. Again, the meaning wasn't always clear 4) We don't need it for doctrine. We have the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, as well as the Book of Mormon to reveal doctrine that has been lost in the Bible. 5) The purpose for the JST was to train Joseph in "prophethoodness". With rare exception, prophets of earlier times had grown up in a culture that knew what a prophet did. They may not have accepted them, but they understood the job description. As Joseph went through the Bible, less hurriedly than he'd done in the Book of Mormon, he could reflect on how Ezra or Moses or Isaiah approached his ministry. 6) God hasn't commanded us to use the JST. We are already "weird enough" with the Book of Mormon, etc., that if we also had a different Bible, our work of spreading the Gospel would be even more difficult, and those who might listen now, might not in such a case. We have a promise that the records of the Jews and of Israel will be available to us at some point. That time is not yet. Patience is a godly virtue. Lehi
    3 points
  5. 2 Who art thou? Suppose ye that we shall believe the testimony of one man, although he should preach unto us that the earth should pass away? Alma was teaching those in Ammonihah They asked him this. Do you know what is amazing about this verse? The people were invoking Jewish Law. Jewish Law requires at least two witnesses. They were invoking Jewish Law! How would they have known Jewish Law if they did not have Jewish ancestors? And how would Joseph have known that? Evidence of the truth of the Book of Mormon.......
    2 points
  6. My baptism came 6 years after conversion. I knew, as a recent convert, that I should be baptized. I also knew that my mom/dad had be baptized as an infant, and if I just asked to be immersed in water baptism, it could be dishonoring to them. At 16 my father told me he would be proud to see me get baptized, so I did so with his approval. I believe that my being mindful of their position and feelings paved the way to both of their conversions nearly 30 years later.
    2 points
  7. I believe this is the case in my extended family situation. There are so many that bend over backwards to please others, and want everyone to be happy. Since i did not extend a hand of fellowship to the new part of this family, I am somehow the one that is wrong. There is a lot of pressure to be tolerant towards these kinds of situations. The more we show tolerance towards sin, the easier it is to condone it.
    2 points
  8. You need to be consistent. Immorality is immorality, irrespective of the laws (many of which are extraordinarily immoral). Lehi
    2 points
  9. Foreknowledge does go beyond prediction--no matter how perfect. It suggests that God knows--with absolute certainty--what each of us will do. Since God is perfect, and he has in his mind what we will do, and he created us, the thinking goes that we do not truly have a choice. After all, whatever is in God's mind MUST happen. We simply do not agree. God granted us free will. We are responsible for our every choice.
    2 points
  10. The assumption seems to be that foreknowledge cannot exist without absolute control - i.e. God forcing you to do something (even if you don't know he's forcing you). If God is making you do a thing, then you cannot be held responsible because it wasn't within your control - you didn't choose to do it. These people reject the notion that God simply knows everyone extremely well and is thus able to "predict" our behavior with complete accuracy. That He had this knowledge from the beginning (of something) and used that knowledge to plan the best possible outcome for each of us seems to take these people back to the "God made me do it" assumption. I also don't understand why people have such a hard time with this. I've never been good at reading (real) people, but I've known people who were, and who could predict their spouse's, child's, or friend's behavior perfectly (given sufficient detail). And yet if God has this knowledge perfectly, many immediately insist it must equate to forcing our behavior. They cannot seem to scale the reality.
    2 points
  11. I remember my seminary teachers trying to help us memorize scriptures, but I don't remember ever passing them off verbatim--I'm terrible at that sort of thing and I have huge respect for those who have been able to train their minds in that way. I do remember that, if the scripture was read aloud, we had to be able to find it; and I did pretty well at that. I think it's worth noting that seminary isn't about imparting knowledge in an academic sense; it's about giving students a general (and frankly, quite superficial) background in the scriptures while cultivating their spirituality and giving them the tools they will need to find the answers they need when they need them and to independently undertake a more serious study of the scriptures later on in life. As for common core, I doubt that as a curriculum it's objectively worse than the status quo. The problem is a) the centralization issues @anatess2 mentions, and b) that the status quo allows children to be helped by their parents who grew up learningthe same methodologies. Common Core denies children this source of support, and there's some evidence that that's why the White House is so enamored of it--there's a belief in the DOE that if ("privileged") parents would quit helping their kids with their homework, a lot of the achievement gap between K-12 students of various ethnicities would disappear.
    2 points
  12. No, no!, a thousand times NO!!! "Life expectancy" is not a useful measure unless you attach an age. The assumed age is "birth", so, while a neonate could expect to live 40 years in the i, his father, presumably at least 15, would have an LE of at least 60, and his living grandfather, aged, say 45, would have an LE of 70 or so. All life expectancy tell us is that half of the people alive at a given age will be dead at another age in the future. Since half or more of all children died before age 5 until about the mid XIX, the LE at birth was necessarily low. but when someone lived to age, say, 20, his LE wouldn't be a whole lot different for a twenty-year-old today. Lehi
    2 points
  13. The Silence of the Lambs has telling scene—one that lays out the two main worldviews of our day. Clarice Starling, the young FBI agent from the Behavioral Sciences division, attempts to assess Dr. Hannibal Lecter, experienced psychiatrist—and serial killer. He looks at her questionnaire and scoffs. Their conversation goes something like this: “Clarice, I kill people and eat them, because I like to, and you can’t call this evil.” She responds that she thinks he may have made some questionable choices, and she would like to if they might work together towards healthier future decisions. Again Lecter laughs and says, “You have traded good and evil for behaviorism.” Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus Christ to his enemies for 30 silver coins. Jesus welcomed him, gave him a position of leadership, and entrusted him with the group’s finance. He had community, authority, and purpose. Maslow would have said that Judas achieved self-actualization—all thanks to the Savior. The betrayer rewards Jesus by stealing from the accounts, turning him over to corrupt religious leaders, and then, even after realizing the error of his ways, by refusing to reconcile—choosing instead to take his own life. Jesus says Judas is in hell. He declares, “Woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.” The only result worse than non-existence is hell. A philosophy professor once suggested to me that since God knew Judas would betray Jesus, the traitor cannot be blamed. It is true that, “the LORD searches every heart and understands every desire and every thought.” However, the Bible continues, “If you seek him, he will be found by you.” No one has to sin. The book of James tells us, “When tempted, no one should say, ‘God is tempting me.’ For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone.” God is good, righteous, and has prepared Heaven for us. Satan is bad, evil, and will be bound in hell for eternity. Will we turn to God or continue in the ways that seem right to us, but which end in death? https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/bad-evil-hell-real-good-righteousness-heaven-tommy-ellis?published=t
    1 point
  14. Backroads

    How was your day?

    Apparently I have had the best day of anyone I know.
    1 point
  15. And the thing is, we can be tolerant without endorsing it. It's one thing to accept that this person wants to live that way. It's an other thing entirely to participate in it. If one of my kids goes gay, I won't disown them. If they want to bring their boyfriend/girlfriend over to have dinner, they'll be welcomed. I won't attend any weddings, however, and I wouldn't allow them to share a bedroom if they were staying with me. Everybody draws the line somewhere different, but that's fine as long as we have a sense of the difference between tolerance and enabling.
    1 point
  16. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon Sci fi likes to use the theoreticle particle a lot, rather than the field.
    1 point
  17. So glad as an unmarried female that Poligamy is off the table. Imagine feeling nervous that the husband of your friend was about to pop the question. Shudder. I have a dear friend who I rarely see. She lives in another part of the country. Whenever she or I are travelling for work I always try to see her sans hubby. The poor woman suffers from the delusion that someone might steal hubby away. In fact, we call him Mr Potato Head. Even her Mormon friends can't stand him. We grit our teeth a lot. This couple have a rule that neither of them are allowed to be alone with a member of the opposiate gender. Good rule. The sisters and and I might kill him!
    1 point
  18. 1 point
  19. Yes. The Brethren already are. In a stake conference several years ago, one of them spoke and said that the rich kids from Sandy, Ut, were not becoming good missionaries because they couldn't do without their phone, computers, cars, and other toys. And that's just one indicator. But we should also worry about the "poor" Saints who have the same values and goals, the only difference being they can't afford them. Lehi
    1 point
  20. Ah, JS-H 1:43 - a conduit. Interesting. And Moroni was visible during his ascent. Huh, perhaps more interesting is that Joseph doesn't appear to see the conduit or a descent when Moroni arrives - he only see the departure like this. Well, that ought to tell us something. Huh, v68 "messenger from heaven descended in a cloud of light". Just last night, when I should have been sleeping, I was pondering the fact that there was no reason there couldn't be multiple ways to travel, and that depending on the way used, and how well the traveler understood it, the effort required could be vastly different. Well, I'll have to try the Joseph Smith Papers Project when I get more time and see if there are more such descriptions. Thanks, @Blackmarch, for the reminder - I had forgotten that we had a few choice details in this regard (though I have used a not entirely dissimilar idea for a particular appearance in book 3). So much to ponder, so little time. :)
    1 point
  21. Agreed. I wouldn't/wasn't trying to suggest we use a 35 year sampling period to go all the way back to the 1800's. If we followed the United Nation pace of increase and worked it backwards to the 1800s some of the women would have been infants when they were married.
    1 point
  22. If you mean where the light gathers around Moroni before he leaves.... My brother had gotten new LED smart-lights for his room, and could control them with a remote and with his phone. He had one up high, and dimmed it remotely, and it very much seemed that the light in the room had drawn back to the LEDs (it seemed very much like movement rather than like dimming - not less coming from the LEDs, but light moving back to it) and the thought which struck me was to wonder if that's how it was it seemed for Joseph - like light moving back toward Moroni, and then leaving with him... Going to look now (not sure where to find multiple descriptions - history is another thing I stink at.)
    1 point
  23. In fairness, I don't think you can project the above graph backwards through time and show a smooth rise in marriage ages since the 1800s. My understanding is that average marriage ages diminished significantly around WW2, and then started creeping upwards again. "Underaged" marriages certainly happened in the 19th century without legal consequences and at a higher rate than now; but even then they weren't exactly the norm.
    1 point
  24. I'm speechless! :)
    1 point
  25. As evidence by the watching MTV or E!, the answer is no. The correct answer is as Lehi said we have infantized children 12-18 and trained them to be completely incapable of making their own decisions. Evidence this by how many children after graduating high school (or even college!!) come back to live with their parents-that just defies logic that a fully formed adult would want to come back home and live under his parents roof after being completely capable of taking care of himself. Is it any wonder why society looks down upon 16 year olds getting married? A 16 year old in the late 1800s had a completely different mindset and maturity level than a 16 year old today. I'd say 16 year olds in the late 1800s were more mature than many 26 year olds today.
    1 point
  26. Brigham young certainly was.
    1 point
  27. Earlier this month a family female relative was married to another woman. This individual was using facebook to determine who in the family she would invite to the wedding. Those that were giving her likes and making positive comments to her about her upcoming marriage were ultimately given wedding invitations, Most of the family (all LDS) were giving her positive feedback, on the basis that showing LOVE meant supporting her on her special day. Out of about 100 people, only a couple of us (myself being one) were not supportive of what was happening. We didn't speak out against it; we were just silent. The wedding took place (I was not there, but saw pictures and videos, and was told about it). . It was a big celebration. Many people attended including Families with children, all showing their support for the newlyweds. The parents of the bride now have a new daughter, fully accepted by them into the family, (and a grand daughter, as the new spouse had a teenage girl). Other family members now have new nieces, cousins, grand daughters, great grand daughters and aunts. There will be many family gatherings where the newly weds and their daughter will be present, Of course, they will need a place to stay as they travel to these events. And, as family we always try provide rooms in our homes for them to stay when coming from out of town. I remember when my son was living with his girlfriend, and one time asked if they could spend the night in my home. I said NO that would not be appropriate. My son understood and didn't hold it against me.. Now, that my son is married to his girlfriend, I have no problem with them spending the night. Now, if my niece and her same-sex spouse come to my part of the country and stop by to visit with the hope of having a place to stay; What do I say? I expect many in the family will give them a bedroom to stay in. I mean, how can you show your support for their marriage and accept them into the family and then say it's not appropriate for you to share a bedroom in our home? I have to say, it is really black and white for me. I was so glad when the Church came out with the handbook changes, it said that same sex couples that get married are apostates and are ex-communicated. The children have to wait til the age of 18 and must disavow their parents marriage in order to get baptized. The church has not done this to show hatred towards anyone. On the contrary, these rules are a way to show forth love and compassion to those that have gone astray. They are always welcome back, but must follow the Savior's requirements. The Atonement is available to all that repent. It logically follows that if the children have to disavow their same-sex parents as being married, then shouldn't the same reasoning apply to parents that have a child that gets married to another person of the same sex? If the child must disavow the parents marriage, shouldn't the parents disavow their child's marriage to a person of the same sex. I worry that in our rush to show forth love, we are inadvertently condoning sin and showing our acceptance to a very evil practice that has invaded our society and our church. And, I believe this evil poses the biggest threat and greatest danger to all involved. Love the sinner but not the sin. Do not be fooled into thinking that you can show love to the sinner by supporting them in their sins.
    1 point
  28. If it your life? If not, then no. Steward over your life, and let others steward over theirs.
    1 point
  29. Perhaps? Here is another chart I think you might enjoy @Zarahemla. It is easy to perhaps see where global marriage ages are headed and perhaps where they have been. There is a very clear age increase globally. Perhaps in another decade or two, the world will look back upon 25yr old men & women and say they were just "babies" when they got married.
    1 point
  30. It can be as dated as it wants - my brain really struggles with this stuff. But I'm off to read. (I'm pretty good at "reading through" stuff I don't understand and usually understand more when I'm done that if I'd just stopped at the first part I didn't get, so hopefully I'll get enough of it to figure out how I might twist the idea into fiction.) OK, decided to read first and post later. First article wasn't hard to follow at all. Now reading about "But quantum mechanics allows for a third way to coordinate information", and then the teleportation article.... Back in a few... Well, that was interesting. Thank, you, JAG! (The remainder of my comments may only make sense if you've read the articles or are familiar with what they say.) The teleportation article is about enough to make me rule out wormholes - way too much energy required! But teleportation seems much more feasible (which is good cuz it's already in use elsewhere in our universe) - though the whole "die in one place and be reborn in another" is disturbing and may present problems (or not, I'll ponder). (Per the teleportation article: "Within a few decades, scientists may be able to teleport a DNA molecule or even a virus." Grand. How long do you suppose it'll take for someone to turn that into a weapon?) Here's my "spooky" theory for how our entangled pair are able to instantly communicate: Maybe they're sealed - you know, like people can be, only at the particle level. (Don't tell the physicists - they'll laugh at me.) PS: The "entangled" pair's ability to communicate instantly no matter the distance would easily be explained in my universe. For more, read book 5.
    1 point
  31. FAIRMormon Link: "Historical and cultural perspective: Plural marriage was certainly not in keeping with the values of "mainstream America" in Joseph Smith's day. However, modern readers also judge the age of the marriage partners by modern standards, rather than the standards of the nineteenth century.
    1 point
  32. Here is another example I enjoy. I'm not sure what Moroni was up to at age 14-16, but I highly doubt he was only playing kick the can (toucan) and catching tadpoles at the pond to prepare himself to be the "chief" captain by age 25: "16 Now, the leader of the Nephites, or the man who had been appointed to be the chief captain over the Nephites—now the chief captain took the command of all the armies of the Nephites—and his name was Moroni; 17 And Moroni took all the command, and the government of their wars. And he was only twenty and five years old when he was appointed chief captain over the armies of the Nephites.
    1 point
  33. And why procrastination is a subtle death. When we are all are resurrected those who are wicked will be wicked still, and those who are good will be good still. On a seperate note i've always wondered why the thought of foreknowledge lets the doer off the hook for their actions.
    1 point
  34. Someone more physics-minded could correct me on this, but I think it has been demonstrated that quarks have "mates"; and that if you change a characteristic of one quark, the same characteristic of its companion will *immediately* change in a similar way (no lag at all) regardless of how far apart the two quarks are. I think it's been hypothesized that this could for the basis for a means of instantaneous communications for locations light-years apart. One might build on that by imagining a world where people have figured out how that link is possible, and then can send matter by the same means (or, can send information such that distant particles reassemble themselves to create a clone of the thing one wishes to send a la NT's idea)--but only to locations where the "mate quarks" already happen to be located (and figuring out what those locations are would be quite a trick).
    1 point
  35. 1.5 to afford women protection and support. this can vary on how it's done... in times where women have few rights sometimes marriage can offset that.
    1 point
  36. Wasn't average male life expectancy back then late 30s to early 40s anyway?
    1 point
  37. I think it's not too much of a stretch to hypothesize that Emma sincerely changed her mind--first she rejected it, then she believed it (or at least, had enough faith to try to make herself believe it), then rejected it again. Well . . . yes and no. That the Twelve, collectively, should take the reins of the Church; was pretty well established--at least, within Nauvoo--by the end of August 1844 (regardless of whether you accept the story about Brigham Young actually taking on the voice/appearance of Joseph Smith at that conference, something happened to leave the Nauvoo saints in relative unity on the matter by the end of the month). The issue resolved in 1847, was whether the Twelve could designate one individual who would wield their collective authority; and that's where a number of dissenters really started to argue that the Q12 was overstepping their authority (the allegation didn't get very far with the bulk of the Nauvoo saints, who were already in Winter Quarters; or with the British saints, who had mostly been converted by members of the Q12; but it was more effective amongst the scattered branches of the Church in the US and Canada). I think you're conflating the second anointing with having one's calling and election made sure; but so far as I know they are not synonymous. The former does not guarantee the latter, any more than the priesthood ordinance of confirmation guarantees that the recipient will actually receive the gift of the Holy Ghost or any more than receiving Cowdery's "apostolic charge" meant that a particular member of the Q12 had actually experienced the sort of divine encounter that the charge speaks of.
    1 point
  38. I think I'm going to have to ponder that for a while before my imagination stops feeling like a rock in a sling...
    1 point
  39. Not only has the OP disappeared, some of the account information has disappeared and he also removed his Facebook references to this discussion. He has basically gone silent. On a different note, here is a video I enjoy:
    1 point
  40. You forgot the only reason that matters... God commanded it and the guy is going to do the best he can to follow God's commands
    1 point
  41. Only the bliss one - because mormons don't do sinful bliss.
    1 point
  42. This discussion has me curious. Do LDS worship Jesus as God the Son? I've always assumed so, and thought I'd heard such here. In checking at FAIRMormon.org, all the articles were about whether LDS believed in a biblical Jesus, not whether or not he was to be worshipped. At LDS.org I found this: https://www.lds.org/liahona/2014/12/children/we-remember-and-worship-our-savior-jesus-christ?lang=eng Basically, it's a Christmas article urging LDS to remember and emulate Jesus. The title, though, was calling for the worship of Jesus. The vast majority of "traditional Christians" do worship him. Our songs are full of adoration: Jesus Jesus Jesus, there's just something about that name. Jesus Jesus Jesus, like the fragrance after the rain. Kings and kingdoms shall all fall away, but there's something about that name. I believe there is a Christmas cantata, that quotes from Isaiah: The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace, throughout eternity... Then there is the chorus in which the first verse is for the Father, and the third for the Spirit. The second verse goes: Jesus I adore you Lay my life before you How I love you! Then there's Philippians 2: 10That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. It would seem to say that the Father glories in our glory of the Son.
    1 point
  43. Just adding to the awesome reply from @LeSellers, I would also suggest the reading of this article: http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Joseph_Smith_Translation_of_the_Bible_(JST) In my view, as Joseph opened the seventh and last dispensation of the gospel, he had special gifts and talents unique to his person and role at the time of the restoration. Remember that in the 19th Century there wasn’t so much technology available to help in translation. Nowadays we have a lot of resources that can help us in translation processes. So, the other 13 Church presidents had different roles in their presidency time and certainly translating the Bible was not part of it. We acknowledge these men to be prophets, seers and revelators, meaning that if God so desired, they could have accomplished that task, but somehow they didn’t. Our living prophet, Thomas S. Monson, has the same prerogatives as his former prophet companions. We don’t know what the Lord has been reveling to him and what sort of revelations they might be. The only thing we can do is speculate. It’s my personal opinion that there are lots of things that these 15 prophets have been taught by the Lord that hasn’t been allowed to be told to the general membership of the Church. Why? Simply because we still need to use the resouces already available to us and because the Lord has said so.
    1 point
  44. 3 Nephi 28:39 tells us that the physical change involved with translation is not equal to the physical change involved with resurrection. Elijah et al. would still have looked at Christ's resurrection as a deliverance, their embodied states notwithstanding. So, the real question is whether translated beings who are taken to heaven go a) to the spirit world, b) directly into God's presence, or c) into some unrevealed "elite club" consisting solely of other translated beings. Option b) seems problematic given D&C 138:51 (entry into Father's kingdom, immortality and eternal life predicated on *resurrection*); and option c) seems both unlikely and doctrinally unsupported. But I know of no reason why option a) could not be the case--is there some scientific law that embodied beings cannot enter the spirit realm? John the Baptist's presence on the mount of transfiguration strikes me as being the real head-scratcher; unless his role was merely to serve as someone known to the disciples, who could have confirmed the identity of the other embodied divine messengers.
    1 point
  45. The same is true for almost anything that remotely resembles philosophy: economics, politics, religion, and so on. I have developed what I call "the Iron Law of Humanity": You can tell what any person or group of people want by observing, over time, what they accomplish." There's a similar "law" that tells us that that which a man thinks every day will make him into that thing. Lehi
    1 point
  46. NeedleinA

    How was your day?

    I just had an image of you in a Superman pose with your hands on your side reciting this in the mirror each morning - hah!
    1 point
  47. But the opposite is also true: were we to assume that she had nothing to do with the murders and other suspicious deaths around her and her husband, then she becomes the victim of this vast right-wing conspiracy and gains the support of a significant part of the voters. The thing is, no one in the left-stream media has even raised this possibility, and the numbers are high, and rising. What better way to paint her with a brush of rosy hue? The pattern around her is that she treats the law as if it does not apply to her. The eMail scandals, the lies about Benghazi, the lies about landing in Boznia under sniper fire, and the myriad of lies about her husband's mistresses and rape victims; these all point to her scoffing at the law. Why would murder be the exception? If we look at the eMail scandal, for example, Comey recommended she not be indicted. But he did so in a speech that listed her myriad of crimes. If that isn't "[buying] out the [prosecution]" what does? And, as I said earlier, even if she didn't order the murders herself, she has surrounded herself with people who would. And she could have known, and, indeed, she should have known what was going on amongst her confidant(e)s. If she didn't know (which I doubt), she has the façade of plausible deniability. The circumstantial evidence is such that any unbiased jury would find her guilty of a host of felonies. That murder would, or might be, one has no power to shock me in the least. Lehi
    1 point
  48. Basically it sounds like they're applying the policy that already exists for children of polygamous families, to children in households headed by a gay couple--no baptism until you're 18 and out of the house, and you have to specifically renounce your "parents'" lifestyle.
    1 point