Suzie

Members
  • Posts

    3361
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Posts posted by Suzie

  1. 23 hours ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

    According to a conversation held in the Salt Lake City School of the Prophet’s 1868, “George A, Smith testified that he had hear Joseph Smith say before his death that the new translation [Inspired Version of the Bible] was not complete, that he had not been able to prepare it, and that it was probably providentially so.”

    Read more at:  https://rsc.byu.edu/joseph-smith-translation/joseph-smiths-translation-bible

    Thanks, it seems as though there are divided opinions among scholars about this topic. I appreciate the source.

  2. On 4/1/2024 at 8:56 PM, Still_Small_Voice said:

    The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (Inspired Version) was never completed anyway according to Joseph Smith.  Someday, in the future, we will be given the fullness of the scriptures including the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon when the world is ready for it.

     

    Hi! Do you have a source for this? As far as I know, he finished the translation on July 1833 and was ready to go press a short time after that.

  3. On 3/29/2024 at 4:04 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

    1.  At that point, for all law enforcement knew, they could be walking into another Waco.

    2.  Per the police report that has been released, officers responding to the neighbors’ house actually bumped into Jodi in her car, who seemed out of breath and mentioned she was “looking for a boy”.  The officers didn’t tell her they’d found the child but mentioned that they, too, were looking for that boy; and the officers then proceeded to the neighbors’ house to see him.  Once they talked to him and learned there was still at least one sibling at Jodi’s house, they went there; and by that time she’d already given up her search and was back at her home.

    She knew she was busted before the cops even showed up on her door.

    It looks like she had her lawyer on speed dial, same for Pam Bodtcher's husband. When the police told him that they found Franke's children in a state of starvation etc, the guy didn't even flinch. This case is getting crazier by the minute particularly during Kevin Franke's interview where he described himself as the "resident exorcist" trying to help Jodi (who claimed to be Satan's bride). He also stated that paranormal activity was going on in the house while Jodi was staying with the family. The most interesting part is when he said that the Bishop and another Church leader were helping Jodi and they were giving her blessings in order to "cast out evil spirits from her" and because they weren't successful, they suggested Jodi to move in with the family. Really? Hmmmm doesn't sound right.

    On top of it all, Ruby decided to stay in Jodi's bedroom where they spent hours behind closed doors and they slept on the same bed. No comment on that one! However, here comes a contradiction. Kevin first stated that Ruby "invited" him to leave but then later on he stated that he left after growing tired of this lunacy. So he leaves HIS children in that crazy environment with no one to protect them? He has no contact with them for a WHOLE year??? Just because those are Ruby's rules?? Who is she, God? He worships her like a goddess EVEN though he knows what she did to their children! When he is told during the police interview that his children were found emaciated (let's think about that for just a second!), he didn't ask ONCE how they are doing and if he can see them. Not. One. Question!!!!! The only thing he asked was if Ruby was okay "because I love my wife". What the....And he is seeking custody of these children??? Sorry for the extra question marks but this case has me infuriated. Just like when Jodi claims to be a psychologist when she is NOT!

    The truth is that both parents have been abusive towards the children way before Jodi came to the picture. I am just hoping justice is served because 4 years behind bars isn't enough for what they did to these poor babies.

     

  4. 10 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

    I get where you’re going here; and generally agree.  But I would note that I think it’s a rare Saint who vets potential counselors solely on their Church membership status or hires the first Mormon counselor they run across.

    I cannot speak as to the particular case under discussion in this thread.  But I stand by my general comments earlier in this thread and will propose that the problem with most of the nominally/formerly LDS families who wound up in the news over the past few years isn’t that they listened to their bishops too much; it’s that they didn’t listen to their bishops closely enough.  

    I can confirm it isn't as rare as we think it is. Unfortunately, there is a lot of work to be done to change this mindset.

    About your second point, it seems to me that LDS members who wound up in the news over the past few years had clear traits of being part of dysfunctional families prior to becoming internet celebrities. Narcissism is on the rise thanks (in part) to social media.

  5. 22 hours ago, mirkwood said:

    My only issue with your last sentence is it appears you are implying that only LDS counselors are abusers.  As you will see below, that is not the case. 

     

    Doing due diligence in your research for any counselor is wise.

     

     

    Therapist sex abuse case reveals dark past, ethical concerns (boston.com)

     

    Wisconsin therapist charged with sexual exploitation of a client | Fox News

     

    Counselor at Boulder Mental Health Facility Arrested for Sexual Assault, Police Looking For Other Victims – Citizens Commission on Human Rights of Colorado (psychiatricfraud.org)

     

     

     

    I don't think my last sentence implies that only LDS counselors are abusers because obviously it isn't the case. But let me explain again in case my comment was misunderstood. I just speak out against choosing a mental health professional solely based on their Church/religious affiliation.  I observe this often and it has become a serious concern for both clients and professionals who are out there trying their best. Being an LDS counselor doesn't automatically make you a good professional and yes it applies to every other religion but the reason I mentioned this specifically is because Bishops recommended Jodi Hildebrandt and clearly, members trusted the suggestion. I was trying to explain this to my sister but all I can say is that she has been living in UT for too long.

  6. Jodi Hildebrandt is a therapist and the Church would refer members to her. There were countless allegations against Hilderbrandt and this is one of the reasons why she had her license put on probation by the Utah Clinical Mental Health Counselor Licensing Board for 18 months. The allegations are very serious in nature. This is the reason why (even though some people get upset with me) I always suggest that if you need to choose a mental health counselor/therapist/psychologist for you or a loved one please, please, please don't do it only based on Church membership.

  7. One of our sons (teenager) has been struggling with health-related issues for the past few months and we still cannot get a proper diagnosis. It has been exhausting for him and our entire family. Honestly, I feel quite shaky emotionally and I'm not that kind of person but it has been so overwhelming and frustrating to see our own child like this and even do we are doing everything we can, we still cannot get proper answers. I'm not sleeping well and I'm not able to do my best at work either.

    Having said that, I know the power of prayer, I have been fasting and praying constantly. I  know the Lord doesn't abandon us when we most need him but can I please ask you to keep my family and our son in your prayers today? I believe when we unite as brothers and sisters in prayer, anything is possible.

    Thank you all in advance, I truly appreciate it.

  8. 1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

    I don't know if you're joking, but I agree.

    I can't get my family to understand that you're SUPPOSED to eat the skins of kumquats.  Their logic is that we don't eat citrus skins - period.  Then they complained that it was too difficult to peel.  Too bad my trees died in the frost.

    No, I'm not joking. I love it!

  9. 9 minutes ago, Backroads said:

    This actually reminds me of a story that was related to me. Some woman brought to the office for her lunch a can of pork and beans as she was feeling super lazy that day. So lazy she didn't even bother to heat them up, just opened the can and dug in. A coworker was apparently deeply offended by this. It amused this lady so much a cold can of pork and beans is now her daily work lunch, just to be an office pest.

    Many years ago, when I just graduated from college and I had my first job, I was quietly eating a few kumquats and this co-worker became enraged over it and said that she found it very disrespectful to eat this without asking first because some people don't like the aroma of citrus fruits. 🤨 Take a guess who brought oranges the following week?

  10. 1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

     His failure to do so, to my mind, simply affirms his unfitness for leadership.  But was it a product of his specific desire for an armed assault on the Capitol, or was a product of a larger personal flaw that renders “de-escalation” generally contrary to his general nature and character?

    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.

  11. 1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

    Indeed; and as you hint in your post, a lot of the meaning of that statement depends on whether he emphasized the “me” or the “hurt” when he made the statement.  Additionally, just because he didn’t mind armed people where he was speaking (at the Ellipse, right?) doesn’t mean he intended for armed people to enter the Capitol—the really damning thing would be if he ordered the Capitol police to quit using their metal detectors, or whether he blocked a request by Capitol Police for federal assistance.  So far (and granted, I haven’t been following this very closely), I’m not sure that’s been conclusively shown.  

    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!".

     

  12. 3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

    I respect the work they’re doing in getting witness accounts “on the record”, but I have no illusions that this is either balanced or non-partisan.  Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony was disturbing, but I want to know how on earth someone in the back of a limo can get anywhere near the steering wheel.  For her to repeat that uncritically, and for no one to have pushed back on it during the hearing itself, raises red flags for me about this incident and about her credibility generally.

    The truth, if ever we get it, will come via the judicial process.  In the interim I continue to believe that on J6 Trump was incredibly stupid—impeachably so, IMHO—but not deliberately fomenting sedition.

    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.

  13. On 6/13/2022 at 6:25 PM, LDSGator said:

    Sure. Most Trumpers are STILL trying to defend the God/Lord/Emperor Trump and pretend that Jan 6th panel is a conspiracy out to get their man. Instead of blaming Trump, they blame the “disloyal” Pence, Barr, etc for not waving a magic wand and putting Trump back in office. It’s creepy. The Obamabots scared me with their cult like devotion to Obama. They still do. The Trumpers really scare me. 

    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.

  14. 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.

     

  15. @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!

     

     

  16. 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".

  17. 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.