Suzie

Honestly, seeing Biden lately I'm really questioning if he will make it...

@Fether I think your heart is in the right place. Unfortunately, mental health issues are often misunderstood and very few people have the knowledge, patience, compassion and understanding to deal with family, friends or co-workers who are struggling.

@Backroads Many families are struggling. We have to be very cautious here (in my view). We don't know the kind of jobs they had previously? They have to pay for rent/mortgage, gas, school supplies, bills, etc. Having said that, I recall you mentioned in one of your posts that you teach in a private school or maybe I misunderstood? Parents are paying for this as well? If they have to pay for private schooling plus all the other bills, it will not be enough. They will have to remove the kids from that school and send them to public school until they can afford it again.

Backroads, not sure how much information you would like to share but.. how many kids we are talking about? Both parents are receiving unemployment? Did they explicitly state they can't feed their kids? Is anyone from school assisting in any way?

Pontificating about “love” by pretty much any modern entertainer, academic, and/or clinician. Given the endless procession of failed relationships most of those bozos have participated in, I can’t think of a group in the past three centuries that is less qualified to advise us on human relationships. Totally get you. I loveee that answer JAG, it's like the best thing everrrr.

"lemon squeezy" Wow, you just added a new one to my list! Lemon squeezy, really? 🤐

The word "like" every five seconds!!!

JAG, he was the definition of evil. About your question, it was actually a common practice by the Utes. When he died, I believe a couple of women and one boy were buried alive. His horses were killed too to keep him company. It has been said he was buried with the last letter of Young in his hand.

Is this a cut and paste from somewhere? No, I gathered all the information and put it together. I will edit my original post and add some of the sources (I normally do this but I have a COVID vaccine brain at the moment).

Slave trade was an essential and established activity of native Indian life in Utah prior to 1847. The Utes, often traded Indian children (including their own) for goods and firearms. When Mormons arrived, they were confronted with this disturbing reality and were coerced into participation. Early members felt they didn’t have a choice in the matter, if they were not willing to do it the Utes would sell the children to the Mexican trade, torture them or kill them. However, when Mormons first arrived in Utah, Ute Chief Walkara welcome them with open arms, thinking perhaps that they would become potential customers and business partners. In 1848 New Mexico became part of the United States, and as a result, things were about to change dramatically for known Mexican traders such as Don Pedro Leon Lujan. He made a request to Brigham Young (Utah's governor and ex officio superintendent of Indian affairs) for a new license. Young refused to grant it and also, gave him a lecture about the evils of Indian slavery. Later on, Don Pedro was discovered with Indian slaves and was charged with trading with Indians without proper documentation, arrested and sent to trial. Chief Walkara was furious at this unexpected outcome because his livelihood was now being threatened by the Mormons. The Indian slave trade as previously mentioned, was an established practice long before the Mormons arrived in Utah. In 1851, the brother of Ute Chief Walkara, decided to go to Provo, confront the Mormons and force them to buy slaves. When the early members refused, he went into a rage telling them they didn’t have the right to stop Don Pedro Leon Lujan from buying children unless they were willing to do it themselves. Daniel W. Jones (Mormon pioneer and who started the first translations of the BOM into Spanish) recorded: “Several of us were present when he took one of the children by the heels and dashed his brains out on the hard ground. He then threw the body toward the Mormons and told them that if they’d had a heart, they would have purchased the child instead.” (The Other Slavery: The Uncovered Story of Indian Enslavement in America, Andres Resendez) Solomon F. Kimball stated: “The red men were not long in learning that the Saints were a tender hearted people and could not witness such scenes without sympathizing to the uttermost with those who were being tortured”. (The Effects of Spanish Slavery on the Indians of the Intermountain West, Carling Malouf & A. Arline Malouf). John Young described one of the children they were able to save: “She was the saddest little piece of humanity I have ever seen, they had shingled her head with butcher knives and fire brands. All the fleshy parts of her body, legs and arms have been hacked with knives, then fire brands had been stuck into the wounds. She was gaunt with hunger and smeared from head to foot with blood and ashes.” (Memoirs of John R. Young, Utah Pioneer, 1847) Even though Mormon pioneers opposed the practice, Brigham Young saw it as an opportunity to save them from death and starvation. He stated that these children were so emaciated that they were not able to stand upon their feet. He also mentioned that Ute Chief Walkara was in the “habit of tying them out from his camp at night, naked, and destitute of food unless it is so cold, he apprehends they would freeze to death”. (The Whites Want Everything: Indian-Mormon Relations 1847-1877 ) So he encouraged early members to buy Indian children, particularly those who were on the verge of death. Brian Q. Cannon noted that Mormons bought slaves for a variety of reasons: Some early members wanted to buy these children because they felt they needed to be “civilized” and wanted to convert them to Mormonism (and Anglo-Americanized). Child slaves soon became a vital source of labor for early settlers. They traded these children with other members or even gave them as gifts. Orson Pratt stated that “the Lord has caused us to come here for this very purpose that we might accomplish the redemption of these suffering degraded Israelites.” (Journal of Discourses Volume 9: Salvation of the House of Israel to Come Through the Gentiles). At least one of these minors, Sally Pidash Young, was indentured by Brigham Young himself. There is anecdotal evidence that suggests that these children were not always treated equally. Some were treated as children of the family and others were exploited and mistreated. They worked as servants for long hours and were not taught how to read or write. They also slept separately from the rest of the family. Brigham Young was aware of this and advocated the passage of the Act for the Relief of Indian Slaves and Prisoners of 1852 which allowed Utah residents to become guardians of Indian minors for up to 20 years. Even though it was not the ideal outcome, it provided some sort of legal protection towards these children since part of the agreement was to ensure that they were clothed "in a comfortable and becoming manner" and receive an education. Some members and historians argue whether or not the church is guilty for engaging in the Indian slave trade. The following is not to justify the activity; however, true motives of why some early Mormon settlers started to engage in the practice shouldn’t be ignored. Despite the controversy, Young himself was opposed to Indian slavery. In his address to the Utah Territorial Legislature in 1852 he stated the following: “It is unnecessary perhaps for me to indicate the true policy for Utah in regard to slavery...When human flesh is to be dealt as property; it is not consistent or compatible with the true principals of government. My own feelings are that no property can or should be recognized as existing in slaves, either Indian or African. No persons can purchase them [Indians] without their becoming as free, so far as natural rights are concerned, as persons of any color; under the present law and degraded situation of the Indian Race, so long as the practice of gambling away, selling and otherwise disposing off their children, as also sacrificing prisoners, occurs among them, it seems indeed that any transfer would be to them a relief and a benefit… This may be said to present a new feature in the traffic of human beings; it is essentially purchasing them into a freedom instead of slavery; but it is not the low, servile drudgery of Mexican slavery, to which I would doom them, not to be raised among beings scarcely superior to themselves but where they could find that considerations pertaining not only to be civilized but humane and benevolent society.” (Address to the Utah Territorial Legislature, 1852)

Certainly, the existence of these exceptions does not automatically mean that God inspires all who find themselves in those scenarios to get abortions, but it does suggest to me that God might inspire some in those morally ambiguous circumstances to terminate their pregnancies. Perhaps I'm overthinking the term "inspiring". I think the Lord might understand these exceptions/circumstances and bring comfort during a very difficult decision. But other than that, I just don't see the Lord inspiring someone to do it.

or like @person0 said where they cannot believe that God would ever inspire someone to get an abortion even thought the exceptions are part of the official position. Personally, I don't think the Church stating that there are possible exceptions for abortions (and they made sure to add that even in those rare exceptions it doesn't justify abortion automatically) equals to God inspiring someone to get one.

"Easy-peasy". Seriously?

@The Folk Prophet I really appreciate your response. Thought about you yesterday and I hope we can leave all of this behind. About my progressive leaning views...lol you know what? It's not THAT liberal. Copying and pasting from another thread: 😂 You guys call me "liberal" or "progressive" (a term I use often to describe my views) BUT I don't think they fit into any particular "box". For example: I believe in legal immigration and at the same time I can empathize with those who are fleeing certain countries. But not to the point where they now jump the line and leave behind those people who have been patiently waiting for years. I believe in fairness, the system is a mess and people shouldn't be waiting for decades to be reunited with family. Then, racism. I don't believe when people say minorities use the "race card" for everything. This isn't always the case, there are genuine cases of racism taking place daily and cannot and should not be ignored or automatically categorized as using the "race card". Also, people assume too many things when they see someone from another ethnicity or culture , they automatically assume the person is illegal, uneducated, they can't speak English or they are on welfare. This mindset cannot be right and I blame this to ignorance, particularly lack of exposure and traveling. The most "exotic" places people go is Hawaii! Real exposure to people of other cultures and races is needed to stop prejudice. What happened to George Floyd was horrible and yet some people chose to talk about his character rather than what was done to him and this isn't good. When the Black Lives Matter movement started, I understood the reason why because no one wanted a repeat of the 50's and 60's but things got out of control rather quickly, destroying property, hurting others, etc to the point of profiting from this and certain individuals becoming millionaires practically overnight. I also don't agree with the extent in which we engage in political correctness. It feels as though there is a new term we all have to be careful to use. I cannot keep up with them and I find myself having to explain what I mean when I'm not inclined to do so. And yet at the same time, I deeply believe in respecting every individual and I truly care how they feel and I don't wish to purposely offend anyone. I am just concerned with people losing their jobs or being accused of things they didn't mean. And don' get me started with cultural appropriation...GOOD CULTURE IS MEANT TO BE APPROPRIATED! Unless we are segregationists." Nothing to forgive, I apologize if I offended you in any way. Have a great Sabbath. Suzie.

Both but I was referring to terrorist attacks in general.

It will never stop and that's the reality we need to accept....

For me has to be: "We'll cross that bridge when we get to it". It drives me crazy because I'm a planner and I'm all for contingency plans, etc. What's yours?

Yep, notions of herd immunity and stopping the thing via a vaccinated population, are pretty much dead notions at this point. Bummer. Delta variant sucks, we saw the possibility, but hoped it wouldn't arrive. And it did. 'rona ain't never going away. The way all of this is unfolding is very concerning to me. It seems as though there is no end! Sigh.

@The Folk Prophet I think my last message was very clear, that's all I have to say about it. Your response indicates to me that this conversation will lead to nothing but contention and we know who is the father of it, right? I think it is best that we don't interact with each other here (I believe there are features on this forum for this). I come to this forum to have civil, peaceful and respectful discussions, not for this. This is going to be my last reply to this issue. All the best.

Suzie, I honestly cannot tell if you're being disingenuous or inattentive to everything I've actually written on the matter here. Did you read everything that I've written in the thread? And if you did are you intentionally cherry picking that, admittedly poor, phrase? Do you really believe that I think raped women "just" have the blues and they should just get over it or something? I really don't want to get into fights and have excessive contention. I'd leave the forum again first. But, I mean...seriously...do you honestly believe that of...well.....anyone who isn't severely mentally and emotionally stunted? If you really believe that of me it's hard to want to actually join with you in conversation on the matter. Do you think so little of me? That I'm really that big of a terrible, callous pig? It's incredibly frustrating to have someone be so passively aggressively rude as to imply I'm that obtuse and cold blooded about rape. I don't know how to respond other than this bluntly. I won't pursue debate and contention with you further on it. I really don't want contention. I considered not responding at all. Maybe I shouldn't have. But I hope that you can make an effort to actually understand me, and I can make an effort as well to actually understand you -- which I do, I might add. I am not, in any way, adamant that women should be legally forced to carry a baby from a rape...I am discussing principles and ideas that are very difficult, and I do understand that. Extremely difficult. It would be nice to have any acknowledgement from someone joining in on the conversation that they even remotely understood my point of view on the matter instead of exaggerating a single moment of poor wording to imply I'm nothing more than a chauvinistic jerk whose opinions, accordingly, are not worth consideration. @The Folk ProphetHonestly, I'm surprised by your response. I re-read my post several times to see where I have given you the impression of being disingenuous, intentionally cherry picking or what is worse, think that I could consider you a "terrible, callous pig". Those are very strong words. We don't know each other and even though we might disagree in our discussions here, I would never think of you (my brother in Christ) in this manner (or anyone else for that matter). I don't appreciate you calling me passively aggressively rude when I wasn't, honestly I think you need to calm down a bit. I have done nothing to deserve this response other than offer my respectful opinion. Having said that, I wish you all the best.

Lethal defense against rape is fully justified in my view. Lethal defense against having to feel bad about carrying a child, give birth and then give said child up for adoption....not exactly the same thing. It would be a terrible thing to have to do. I'm not denying that. I am questioning whether that justifies lethal defense. Seems to me like therapy, medication and other means of dealing with the trauma should be the go to. Because, after all, we're talking about killing a baby, not some creepy guy in your living room. You do whatever you need to to preserve that life. It is the priority. Just as you would a born baby. That baby's life comes first. You protect it first. You die first before it does. You face whatever trauma you have to in order to protect it. You deal with those things to protect the innocent. This is an oversimplified view of a very complex issue. Women who are raped and pregnant aren't just "feeling bad" for carrying a child. As JAG posted "By its nature, it--both the memory of the event, and the simple knowledge that the event occurred--forces itself into the mind of the victim and repeats itself, over and over and over and over again, until she is reduced to a non-functional gibbering wreck; and then it repeats itself some more. Thus, when we see a woman who is pregnant as a result of a rape, I believe it is wrong to see her purely as a victim of a past act that happens to have some ongoing fallout. In a very real sense, she is still being raped. Psychologically, maybe the baby is part of that dynamic, and maybe it's not--no one can tell but the victim herself. " Some women can cope with this horrific situation, give birth and give up the baby for adoption or even raise the child as their own. Other women cannot. From a psychological point of view, you're endangering this woman's life but also the baby she's carrying. It can lead to serious consequences (and depending on the severity of the trauma) it can cause the woman to attempt suicide or harm her unborn child.

But Caster Semenya, a South African runner who is a two-time Olympic gold medalist in the 800 meters, who have naturally high levels of testosterone compared with most women wasn't allowed to compete in that race. 😳 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/31/sports/laurel-hubbard-trans-weight-lifting.html

When you are trying to show off:

Grandparents offering money, paying for school, etc, but also doing so with some semblance of control. If these grandparents did work hard to provide for their families, do they have the right to expect such things? Well, they can offer but their children can choose not to accept it? I think it's naive to think they will pay for all these things and expect nothing in return. This doesn't mean the grandparents are right but I don't think the parents are as oblivious as we might think. They want the cake and eat it too: They don't mind the grandparents to pay for school fees, and yet they don't want anyone telling them anything about their children. They want grandparents to babysit their children most of the day for free, but they get angry if the grandparents feed their child a particular food, etc. They don't mind to live under their roof, but you can't tell them anything even though they aren't paying any rent. You can't have it both ways, if you don't want others to use money as leverage or as a way to manipulate you, then don't accept it if you don't need it.

Samuel W. Richards diary provides an interesting account (he was in NY at the time before his mission, circa 1846). “Sister Lincoln who was very sick with a cancer” requested that he and several other elders visit. Finding her in good faith, but not expected to live, the men sang and prayed with her. They administered the sacrament of bread and wine to her. Then she was anointed with oil unto the day of her burial which was sealed by the laying on of hands and prayer.” This isn't the only case, there are quite a few more in Church history. Wilford Woodruff diary also provides another interesting account after a meeting with the First Presidency, stating that "Church leaders were called upon Sister Gray who had a canser (sic) in the breast which was eating her vitals & rotting her flesh. Presidet (sic) Young Cannon, & myself laid hands upon her. She wished us to pray that she might spedily (sic) die as she could not live. Presidet (sic) Young dedicated her to God for her death & burial. In about 12 hours she died."