Vort

No, he was not, not in any sense in which that word is used in American political discourse today. That is not a feature of today's American liberalism, unless you're saying that Jesus would call for the freedom to destroy your unborn baby if you feel it might inconvenience you. Pretty sure you're not saying that. Certainly not any sort of feature in modern American "liberalism". This is simply false. We as Latter-day Saints are familiar with this general idea. It's an application of the law of consecration; early latter-day efforts were generally called "united orders", were entered into only by covenant, were always voluntary, could be left at any time, and were administered in all cases by leaders called of God and not by agents of profane governments. To compare such small, private, religiously motivated efforts to "a type of socialism" is way beyond the mark. I think it's worth noting that even with divine guidance, the early covenant Saints failed to get those societies to work as they were intended, until the effort was ultimately abandoned. As he has always done. Note that he did not call for Rome to care for the sick or for the nominal Jewish king Herod "to feed the poor and care for the sick so that none would be hungry and all would have basic necessities." Jesus' call to action was an individual charge, to be fulfilled individually and not to be abrogated to a government (profane or otherwise) to enforce such feeding and caring. I think you overstate, or simply misstate. Please outline which of "the more conservative ideals of the time...were alarmingly closely aligned with many of the [conservative] ideas of today." This is not even slightly true unless you intend the word "liberal" in almost the opposite sense to which it is normally used in America today.

You are openly misrepresenting what I said.

I think this is rather more similar to buying a gallon of milk from a store that also sells cigarettes and booze. Engaging in a financial transaction could certainly be considered "supporting" someone or something, but that's a problematic stance to take for an organization that does not want to be isolationist.

I've been waiting years for someone to write a Chick Tract of Jack Chick post-mortem.

Perhaps I would have better said that they don't believe in modern revelation in the sense preached throughout the Restoration—that is, that God reveals Himself to His prophets. They certainly believe in revelation such as inspiration and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which puts them in the same class as most of the rest of modern Christianity. You may still disagree with this, and maybe you're right, but right or wrong, that would be a better reflection of what I intended to communicate.

Funny you should say that, since the tragedy at Marathon might have been prevented by something like a bicycle.

I am sure this is true for some. I doubt it is the common sentiment among CoC members, who seem to have long since abandoned any real belief in the Book of Mormon, restoration, modern revelation, and so forth.

The hill near the finger lakes region in eastern (upstate) New York that we call "Cumorah", where Joseph Smith first unearthed the plates of Mormon, is a drumlin—an enlongated, roundish hill composed of debris piled up by and left over from the actions of glaciers that retreated at the end of the last ice age, 13,000 or so years ago. Its structure is not like e.g. the mountains in Utah. You will not likely find limestone caverns in a drumlin. While I suppose it's possible there is some sort of large cave in the modern hill Cumorah, I doubt it, and don't see any convincing reason to suppose there is.

Laban was just a misunderstood guy with a temper problem. He lost his head. It happens.

I'll go further. The Republican Party is corrupt, and many or most Republican leaders are also corrupt and care about power and influence much more than freedom and liberty. Of the two major parties that have been thrust upon us, the Republicans are significantly less corrupt and awful than the Democrats, which is why I nominally support the Republicans. But I am under no illusions as to the purity of the Republican cause. My feelings about the Republicans are in line with my feelings about Donald Trump and a potential second Trump administration: It's much better than the alternative, but that does not make it ideal, or even particularly good.

How would it be?

I find this unlikely for several reasons: The Bible is perhaps our strongest contact with "traditional" Christianity, a commonality we would be loathe to lose. The JST was never proclaimed as complete. On the contrary, it's a sporadic mishmash of retranslation, interpretation, and doctrinal additions and changes. I think it would not be especially useful as the Bible is used today to try to use the JST as a regular Bible version. The Church has used a non-JST Bible throughout its history. That's what people know. You don't easily just give that up. (This is sort of an extension of the first bullet.) Saints have often complained about the shortcomings and difficulties inherent in using the KJV. The JST preserves all those perceived shortcomings and adds others. Whatever insights Biblical scholarship might add (e.g. the Dead Sea scrolls) would largely be mitigated by a slavish adherence to the JST. (Bonus point: The existence of the JST itself argues against "slavish adherence".)

How would it be?

They quit making any more of it.

Mmmmm...I think probably not. We aren't nearly the hunters that cats are, we don't have the sense of smell that dogs have, we don't have the visual acuity of an eagle. But we do well at what we're fitted for, just like a whale or a slug or an owl. For instance, there is no distance runner that can match humans. When it comes to "persistence hunting", we're the champions. Dogs and doglike animals (e.g. hyenas) do some persistence hunting, but nothing like humans can do. When it comes to intentionally modifying our external environment, again, we're the champions. So we fill our niche and do a wonderful, perhaps incredible, job at it. But we don't run as fast as horses or cats, that's true, or pull the weight that a bovine can pull. Our particular brilliance is in yoking the oxen to pull things for us.

I dislike certain tags that oversimplify and distort matters, such as the "Two-Cumorah Theory". Rather than state the matter as "there were two or perhaps more hills called Cumorah", which, though possible, sounds clearly like a stretch (or a tautology—"King Lear was not written by William Shakespeare, but by another playwright of the same name"), a better statement would be, "Perhaps the very name 'Hill Cumorah' simply means the hill chosen to house records." If we assume that records were always hidden somewhere on a hill so that (1) they would be marked by an easily recognizable landmark and (2) they would shed rainfall, it's easy to see that such a hill might become generally known as "Records Hill". Those concerned with record-keeping would quickly learn to look for the Records Hill in an area. If "Cumorah" denotes written records or a storage place for them, then this identification makes perfect sense. Of course, it's still an unsupported assertion, really just speculation. But it certainly has great explanatory value for those who believe the literal truth of the Book of Mormon and the narrative that it provides, and it doesn't immediately raise suspicion and mockery like "Two-Cumorah Theory" does.

Nor do I. You are many things, mostly good things, but even among the not-so-good bits that any mortal man must exhibit, I've never seen you as a shill for the Left. I simply think you have accepted the Left's view of the J6 events, and in that I disagree. I figure both notions are fatally flawed. It's ok to understand right-leaning issues, black anger, and leftist anticapitalist rage. It's ok when folks protest. It stops being ok, IMO, after the first bit of vandalism, property destruction, pushed-through crowd control barrier. I don't care what side you're on, you lose my support the second your anger and rage and protesting turns into property destruction and interfering with the rule of law or the proper functioning of our protective institutions. I actually agree with the substance of your analysis. While I do not buy into the whole BLM philosophy, I think they could potentially make a good point that the whole societal structure masks the injustices they perceive. I think that they are right to some degree, though not nearly to the degree that they claim. So yes, I am essentially preaching that same gospel, though applied differently. I disbelieve their application of it, which I see to be immensely self-serving and perverse, but I have no fundamental beef with the underlying idea or principle that perceptions are shaped and influenced by the status quo and by seemingly unrelated things, such as verbal expressions and actions that act for some as "dog whistles". I deplore the Left's relentness cynicism and nihilism that they freely use to achieve their end goals, but I don't dispute the fundamental idea that manipulation of perceptions is real. On the contrary, the Left are masters at such manipulation. They wrote the book on it. Of course. That was never at issue, at least not in my mind. My apologies if I came across as too strong. Overreact? Moi? Shirley ewe jest.

This is an example of the whole "my people seem to have a different colored sky than me" thing I've noticed about J6. It's so bizarre to me. Even Vort, one of the smartest, most reasonable people I know, seems to enter this bizarro world where they read something critical of J6, and hear the exact opposite of what got said. My fatal flaw (as noted above) was incorrectly ordering the events. Yes, I understand that the order of events was your whole point. (Well, not your whole point, but an important part of it.) In that, you are right and I am wrong. Trump's calls for peace took place after the whole shebang went off. But I actually don't care about that part. I assume Trump did not realize exactly what was happening, and when he became really aware of how "his side" was being embarrassed by the actions of the protesters, he tweeted off his humble, peace-giving advice. (More sarcasm, for the humor-impaired.) Were his tweets convenient and self-serving? That's entirely possible. Were they insincere? Maybe so. But they cannot reasonably be counted against him. Trump was calling for peace. That cannot be twisted to say, "Look, he was secretly encouraging seditious behavior!" This is true, even if Trump was actually acting in a self-serving and insincere manner. No, not opposite day. Possibly "Vort not reading carefully and responding exactly to what's there" day. But as I said, I don't care much about the timeline, except insofar as it might actually exonerate or condemn Trump. I don't think it does either, though I'd lean slightly more towards "exonerate" than "condemn". In any case, I freely grant you that point. The timeline does not demonstrate Trump getting right on top of the (so-called) insurrection at the earliest possible moment and immediately pleading for calm. Yes, indeed! And I say that only slightly tongue-in-cheek. The J6 incident does not exist in a vacuum. The background to the event was many years, even decades, of the media championing the Left and ignoring the Left's "peccadillos" (little Clinton reference there) while propounding and magnifying any perceived infraction by the Right. George W. Bush was personally responsible for everything from oil price increases to the melting ice caps. Molly Ivins, may she rest in hell peace, took every opportunity to blame Bush for everything she could possibly pin on him, no matter how absurd. Her co-columnists and media cronies said not one word against her unhinged railings. That's one example among thousands. Yes, the fact that the Left acts vastly worse than J6 and doesn't get called on it is not only relevant, IT'S THE WHOLE POINT. The J6 incident was an act of stupidity, more laughable than concerning. The same cannot possibly be said of the BLM riots. Yet which of the two events has resulted in YEARS of breast-beating by the press, and which was essentially poo-pooed out of existence and ignored to this day? You treat the J6 incident as if it was exactly as serious as the press claimed (and claims) it to have been. It was not, but you preach the line on that. So yes, I maintain that if you are going to take that stance, that it is only reasonable that you voice vastly more concern for the vastly more concerning incidents that preceded J6, and that doubtless at least indirectly influenced its very occurrence. We live in Clown World. However, I do not consider you a clown. I respect your opinion, and often agree with it. I appreciate your viewpoint. But on this matter, I hear you parroting the distortions and excesses of the "mainstream media" while offering no counterpoint that might explain the immense dissatisfaction felt by those who are ostensibly (and wrongly accused of being) the supporters and perpetrators of J6—namely the political Right. As someone who is in many ways a part of the political Right, I explicitly disclaim any responsibility with regard to the J6 incidents, both for myself and for the political Right in general. In this, I directly disagree with you, based on your statement that "Our side screwed up royally on J6. If we're gonna have problems with Antifa and BLM riots, and defend what happened on J6, then we're just as hypocritical as the folks who defend Antifa and BLM riots, but have problems with J6". Specifically, "our side" did not "screw up royally" (or in any other way). Some idiots who call themselves conservative screwed up royally. That is not on me or on the conservative movement in general. And yes, you absolutely must mention the evils of the Left, especially when they very directly contribute to the behaviors you are ascribing (wrongly, in my view) to the entire political Right. That was pretty much the point I was trying to make.

Because "right wing extremist" has almost no meaning. It is a media-invented bugbear. And this is vastly different from the left-wing actions taken throughout the entire election that were implicitly and sometimes explicitly approved by the media—how, exactly? So Trump, but not exactly. Seriously? That an openly partisan House impeached Trump for a non-existent insurrection somehow proves Trump guilty? This is not even close to true. He did indeed begin instructing people to be peaceful, but not until after all the horrible had happened. The march hit the capitol a little after 2PM. Pence and the Senators, engaged in certifying the election, had to stop certifying the election, and started getting evacuated around 2:13. The peaceful transition of power, a founding cornerstone of our great republic, was interrupted by the people who hit the capitol. These people had been whipped up into action by Trump, Guliani, and Trump Jr. Unbelievable. By your own admission, Trump instructed people to be peaceful. Then some handful of drunken, blathering idiots marched on the Capitol, and suddenly it's an "insurrection"? And Trump is responsible for that, because he voiced the opinion that the vote was not legitimate? Methinks you are trying far too hard to be "fair and unbiased", to the point that you're way overreaching and assigning blame to the political Right that the Right does not own. It is not the fault of the Right wing, or of Republicans in general, or of conservatives, or even of Trump, that some boozed-up morons walked through the Capitol building pretending to be heroic and humiliating themselves. I am not a fan of fiery protests or street swarming. I think people who engage in such protests are, generally speaking, fools and shills, empty-headed partisans who could not think their way out of a subway conversation. I think such people are normally made of of Lefties, and that they should be treated with all the contempt that the J6 fools seem to inspire in their detractors. And if you think the videos you linked are so terribly scary, take a look at video from the BLM riots. That was an actual example of lawlessness and insurrection, an example widely supported by the Democrats and other lefties, including the media, with no punishment enforced against basically anyone. And then everyone in the media focuses on the J6. We're not stupid, NT. We see what's going on here. We do not dismiss what happened on J6. We assert that it was far less dangerous and criminal (and organized by nefarious actors) than what happened before. We decry the openly partisan nature of the "debate" around these events conducted by the media. It is a witch hunt. No. "Our side" did not "screw up royally". That is a false allegation, assigning the blame of the actions of a few to the many. "Our side" had nothing to do with J6. I do not believe that Trump was directly involved, and I suspect his indirect involvement was limited to encouraging the public crying and screaming and other ridiculousness that you support, but not active suppression of Congressional activity. Whatever Trump tried to do in that regard, he tried to do through public actors in their official capacity. If you want to claim that Trump was trying to get people to do illegal or at least questionable things to delay the election count, go for it. Maybe you're right. If such actions were investigated, charges brought, and convictions made in a court of law, I and most other conservatives would support it. But shockingly enough (<--I'm being sarcastic here, in case anyone missed it), that's not the route this whole thing has taken. Rather, it's been media setup, constant politicking, and Colorado (et alia) media-driven political idiots making blatantly illegal (and insurrectionist, if we're being honest) efforts to remove a candidate from the ballot who has been convicted of absolutely nothing sedition-wise. Trump is a funny guy to have as a hero. At first glance (like, say, in 2016), it's hard to come up off the cuff with a less likeable, supportable candidate for President of the United States of America than Donald Trump. But the more I hear his ridiculous bellowing, the less ridiculous it sounds. The more I see the results of his efforts, the less I hate him. Meanwhile, the media is baffled that we don't like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

When Sotomayor and Jackson both join the majority in a unanimous decision, you know you're an idiot for your illegal actions. What an unmitigated failure for Colorado. What a rebuke to the orchestrating Democrats and other leftists. What a deep embarrassment to any sentient American who supported such a farcical move.

Because it fits their narrative. Period.

We act in our own self-interest. Which is to say, our politicians act in their own self-interest. But that doesn't mean that the US is not carrying too much of NATO's burden. I think we are. Not sure what the appropriate response is, but I'm pretty confident that it isn't to stay the course. As is way too often the case, Trump's blusterings have more than a faint ring of truth to them.

Irrelevant. Within the context of the New Testament account, Jesus is divine. To ignore that context is not merely to cherry-pick one's evidence, it is to render the words meaningless. You might as well say that Jehovah was "sexist". Not merely stupid, but self-contradictory, regardless of one's personal philosophy or religious beliefs.

Christ's whip was for those acting literally as moneychangers in the temple. The dove sellers were acting, perhaps innocently, as providers of the needed sacrifice. They may have thought they were acting acceptably, not much different from today's Saints renting temple clothing at the temple.

Or Pocahontas.