Suzie

Members
  • Posts

    3349
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Suzie last won the day on September 9 2021

Suzie had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Religion
    Black Sheep Mormon

Recent Profile Visitors

4926 profile views

Suzie's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (4/4)

1k

Reputation

  1. Good questions. And the answers for both "affirms his unfitness for leadership" IMHO. JAG, I appreciate your take on this because it tells me that even though there are people out there who do support Trump and many of the good things he did, it doesn't mean they are blind followers willing to justify anything and everything. I don't recall who said it, but a Republican some time ago said something along the lines of "Trump is not part of the Republican party, he IS the Republican party." This level of deification and adulation is extremely concerning.
  2. Conclusively perhaps not, but the "event" was planned and even promoted online. He knew they were fully armed and his speech did nothing to calm the mob but all the opposite. He wanted support, he wanted people to rile up and stand by him no matter what. He took a very Machiavellian approach "the end justifies the means" and that's a very scary way of thinking and acting particularly if you happen to be the POTUS. It is the behavior of either a very evil and self-absorbed narcissist or someone who is unhinged or demented. And yet, I feel as though none of this is important because "he was good for the economy". Honestly, I feel as though he can go and commit the most serious crime in front of the whole world and someone will say "but did he really do it? Hmmmm Do we have proof?. Maybe it was a double...those dems again!" or worse: "I don't care about that, look how good our economy is now!".
  3. I agree with most of your post. I was actually surprised that Hutchinson's testimony about the steering wheel incident wasn't challenged or questioned as it should (giving the magnitude of the situation). Having said that, it was hearsay so I don't think she could have said anything more than what she already shared. In my view, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if Trump did it. The other statement about Trump knowing fully well that the mob was armed and STILL didn't think it was a problem because "they aren't here to hurt ME" is what I found the most disturbing. I cannot dismiss his behavior as "stupid", I think he knew exactly what he was doing. Can smart people like Trump be stupid sometimes? Absolutely. But on January 6, no.
  4. I agree and what is coming out from the Jan 6th committee is astonishing but for Trump and some of his radicalized followers, it is all "fake" news and what took place in Jan 6th isn't a big deal.
  5. Guys...I just....can't.... 😞 Edit: 18 children now...
  6. I cannot believe how weak and afraid NATO is coming across! I'm disgusted at the constant "We condemn...." and Biden's empty words. We certainly didn't mind when Poland wanted to send jets but when it meant we would send them to Ukraine, we decided that it wasn't a good idea after all. We are acting like cowards!!! Seriously?! Russia isn't the issue here, the administration is afraid of China.
  7. @Jane_Doe First of all, hold on tight because I'm sending a bear hug! Now, a bit on the topic...we need to take good care of ourselves and it is perfectly okay to say NO. We are first and foremost individuals and we cannot and should not live up to everyone's expectations. First, because it it impossible and second because it is unhealthy. Listen...they can ask you to set 1000000 goals, feed the missionaries every day, go to every single meeting and the list goes on. There is nothing wrong with these requests (*cough* minus the endless meetings) but YOU know your circumstances and YOU (and only YOU) get to decide what you want/need based on your particular situation. You don't have to feel guilty about it or think you're not doing enough. Many moons ago, the Bishop called me to "talk" but I suspected he wanted to extend a calling. I was in a very rough spot due to a medical issue with one of my kids. I explained this to the Bishop, who was already aware of it. He nodded his head the entire time. When I finished talking, the only thing he said to me was: "Wow, sorry to hear this. Anyway, we want to call you as..." FWIW, I'm not saying this to bash the Bishop. I'm saying this to show that companies/institutions/organizations (including the Church) tend to focus a lot on organizational structuring but if you cannot do it, guess what? Then someone else will. Also (many years ago) I was supposed to meet with a client who scheduled an emergency appointment but I wasn't able to attend because I had to rush one of my children to the ER. Due to the nature of the client's situation, he had no choice but to meet with a former colleague. She wasn't happy at all and she told me about it, not even once she asked about my kid. These lessons and others taught me that I cannot control what others "say" or their expectations about me BUT I can control what I CHOOSE to do and apply it to my life IF it makes me feel happy, content and fulfilled. And if it doesn't....Well, I CHOOSE not to do it and if someone doesn't like it, TOO BAD. I hate with a passion ANY workshop/training related to "goals". Such a waste of time!
  8. Another one I remember was calling a woman on the autism spectrum to serve in the Primary Presidency. She admitted she hated working with kids and said, "I will accept the calling, but only because I think it's wrong to decline." At that point, we backed up a bit and advised her that maybe we needed to clarify what was needed of her. We described the needs the Primary President felt were in her weaknesses, and identified that those weaknesses were in this sister's strengths. We also went a step further and advised her that service in the church should bring joy, and if she went a couple of months and felt miserable in her calling, she should talk to us so that we could release her and find her a calling that she would be more uplifting for her. Her attitude changed from "I'll accept this calling because I feel like I have to," into "I have something to offer, and I find it less stressful to try because I know I can an 'escape route' if I really don't like it." she served for two years before the Primary presidency was reorganized . I appreciate this kind of approach where a dialogue is established and where the member can express their needs/challenges/fears and someone is actually listening rather than an invitation "just to fill a calling".
  9. I don't believe there is really anything you could say, but love him. @Anddenex I like your simple and yet powerful approach. “how far can I indulge these appetites before it becomes a sin?” @Just_A_Guy I was thinking about this when I was reading about LGBTQ+ members dating. My heart goes out to them and yet this very important question remains: Where do you draw the line?
  10. What she said was a clear threat and needs to be taken seriously, she needs to be charged. I hate to say this but if instead of "Amelia" was "John", I don't think the police will be talking about the parent contacting law enforcement and apologizing because the person believes "the statement was not intended the way it was perceived." Ridiculous. Angry people may shout, insult, use profanity, etc they don't go around threatening people by saying they will bring GUNS to SCHOOL "ready to..." Unbelievable.
  11. But I can admit that the neighbor who just filmed it might not deserve life with no parole. @LDSGator this is what I thought at first BUT apparently, the neighbor did more than just filming. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/22/us/ahmaud-arbery-william-roddie-bryan.html
  12. Yesterday, I finished watching the last season of Cobra Kai. Obsessed is an understatement!
  13. The reason behind the question is that I see a teaching that Adam's disobedience is not viewed as a sin, whereas other teachings say it was a sin. In my opinion, the 1988 quote from Dallin H. Oaks needs to be understood in the proper context. In this talk, Elder Oaks was making reference to many Christian beliefs about the "original sin" and he used the same expression to explain Adam's transgression. Even though LDS theology does not recognize the concept of "original sin", the two terms are often used interchangeable. Maybe this was the case with Elder Oaks, however by 1993 he is very clear about the differences between sin and transgression: "This suggested contrast between a sin and a transgression reminds us of the careful wording in the second article of faith: “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression” (emphasis added). It also echoes a familiar distinction in the law. Some acts, like murder, are crimes because they are inherently wrong. Other acts, like operating without a license, are crimes only because they are legally prohibited. Under these distinctions, the act that produced the Fall was not a sin—inherently wrong—but a transgression—wrong because it was formally prohibited. These words are not always used to denote something different, but this distinction seems meaningful in the circumstances of the Fall. "(The great plan of happiness Dallin H. Oaks 1993)
  14. Maybe I'm out of touch but since when the "ok" hand sign is a symbol of hate and white supremacy?