carlimac

Members
  • Posts

    2332
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Reputation Activity

  1. Thanks
    carlimac got a reaction from NeedleinA in So we’re not discussing Romney?   
    Really! Watch this! 
     
  2. Thanks
    carlimac got a reaction from mirkwood in So we’re not discussing Romney?   
    Really! Watch this! 
     
  3. Thanks
    carlimac got a reaction from mirkwood in So we’re not discussing Romney?   
    Just watched a Blaze TV about the missing money sent to Ukraine to prop up their banks. Mind blowing!! I recommend y’all watch it. The house and MSM has spun a narrative that had nothing to do with what really happened. 
  4. Thanks
    carlimac got a reaction from Colirio in So we’re not discussing Romney?   
    Just watched a Blaze TV about the missing money sent to Ukraine to prop up their banks. Mind blowing!! I recommend y’all watch it. The house and MSM has spun a narrative that had nothing to do with what really happened. 
  5. Thanks
    carlimac got a reaction from Colirio in So we’re not discussing Romney?   
    Really! Watch this! 
     
  6. Like
    carlimac got a reaction from person0 in So we’re not discussing Romney?   
    Really! Watch this! 
     
  7. Like
    carlimac got a reaction from anatess2 in So we’re not discussing Romney?   
    Really! Watch this! 
     
  8. Like
    carlimac reacted to anatess2 in So we’re not discussing Romney?   
    This doesn’t make sense either.
    Trump doesn’t have to allow his administration to potentially get themselves “Michael Flynn’d” unless he is subpoenaed to.  It is not his job to prove himself innocent.  He is innocent by default.  It is on Congress to prove his guilt.  Now... here’s right back at you - why did Congress not get a subpoena if they want those testimonies?
  9. Haha
    carlimac reacted to Just_A_Guy in So we’re not discussing Romney?   
    I hadn’t heard the Wallace interview until you pointed me to it just now.  I agree that Romney’s constant invocation of God is stylistically grating; and in the interview he comes off as a bit of a poser.
    I can’t really speculate as to what’s going on in Romney’s head.  The only thing I can anticipate is that he probably thinks Trump is a bad guy who does bad things, which influences his perception of Trump’s intentions during the Ukrainian business.  (Maybe back when Trump was dangling State before Romney, Trump said something that makes Romney think this is a more likely scenario; who knows?)   For whatever reason, Romney *did* vote for acquittal on the second count when he could just as easily voted for conviction. 
    Like Romney probably does, I do think Trump is fundamentally a bad guy in a lot of days; but I also get daily reminders that even bad guys are also entitled to due process.  I don’t think “due process” necessarily means in impeachment what it does in criminal or civil court—if a senator says “I’m going to vote for impeachment because the President called my baby ugly fifteen years ago”, I think ultimately that’s the senator’s prerogative.   But if you’re going to give lip service to due process (or at least fundamental fairness) in an impeachment context as Romney and most of the other senators have, then IMHO you’ve got to see it through; and the fact is that it’s not fundamentally fair to impeach/remove a president for doing the Exact. Same. Thing that his predecessor’s veep did less than four years ago where the veep not only got off scot-free, but is now running for the presidency himself.
    But for the stake of stirring the pot:  since a number of conspiracy theories regarding Romney have been submitted, I will propose one more.  Perhaps the LDS church leadership considers it wise to always have at least one LDS senator who is seen as not being too close to the Republican party.  Certainly, if Trump loses re-election in November (and especially if the GOP also loses the Senate), it will be in both Utah’s and the Church’s interests to have at least one sitting Senator who is perceived to not have wholly been in Trump’s pocket.  In light of Senator Reid’s retirement, perhaps the First Presidency has secretly asked Romney to carry on as the Church’s “designated non-Republican” (or at least, non-Trumpling) in the Senate.
  10. Haha
    carlimac reacted to anatess2 in So we’re not discussing Romney?   
    Now, I've been trying to get somebody... ANYBODY... to explain to me Romney's "conscience" and I still haven't gotten anybody to talk to me without opening with "You're a racist...", well, you know the drill.
    Maybe you can give me something because you have that morality issue with Trump.
    Now, the way I see it - if Romney is kinda like you and he really just can't deal with a President that odious - then wouldn't his entire interview with Chris Wallace be a lie?  And how about his duty as a Representative of the State of Utah?  That doesn't go into the equation of his "conscience"?  We already know Constitutionality is not a factor in his "conscience".  
    It really ticked me off when he decides to drag his Mormon faith into this thing.  He went through 2 Presidential campaigns trying to avoid having to mention his religion until it became a sticking point in the general election but now he has no problem pointing it out when it wasn't necessary.  You won't believe how many times I had to field questions from friends like - "Is it true that missionaries are recruited by the CIA to be an operative for the deep state because they just blindly follow what they're told?  Is that why Romney is doing this because he is blindly following what he's told?"...
  11. Like
    carlimac got a reaction from Just_A_Guy in So we’re not discussing Romney?   
    I'm skeptical, mostly because so many liberal Trump haters are gushing over it. It just doesn't feel right. 
    And I'm no Trump lover. He drives me crazy.  If I didn't have to hear his voice, his State of the Union address was great. Our country does seem to be in better shape than it has been for awhile. Got to give him credit for stirring things up.  But his narcissistic, taking credit for everything, schoolboy pouting and constantly flinging insults and  barbs at his enemies are nauseating. 
    I'm just not convinced that what he did  with the phone call was impeachable. So Romney's somewhat timid and so very very safe "breaking with ranks" doesn't impress me. He may be burned at the stake so to speak but ironically, it will be by those who voted him in. But it seems his actions assure him  a spot with the "Moral Majority" in the Democratic party. (sarcasm on) so he doesn't have to worry.  For this and a few other things, I'm glad I'm not a Utah resident right now.
  12. Like
    carlimac got a reaction from Just_A_Guy in So we’re not discussing Romney?   
    I really liked him but knew he wouldn’t win POTUS when I went to vote.Well I didn’t “know” but had a strong impression.  It was good for him to run but it wouldn’t have been good for the church if he were president. 
    Since then I’ve been sort of “meh” about his political moves. (I do like his wife though. She’s doing awesome things in the realm of neuro research and healthcare.) Go Ann!
    In the last 24-48 hours there has been a huge flip flop among my friends. Those who voted for him for senate now despise him. Those who couldn’t bring themselves to vote for him are now practically drooling at his feet. It’s a little sickening. And they were the ones criticizing him for flip-flopping. 🤔
    My uneducated observation is that he simply saw things differently than the rest of the clan. Came to a different conclusion. 
    But I can hardly call his one “guilty” vote heroic when he knew it wouldn’t actually oust Trump. His vote didn’t make any difference in the outcome. Would he still have voted guilty if his had been the deciding vote?
     I don’t like to judge. But it kinda looks like he just did this to ingratiate himself with his enemies. I don’t know. He seemed sincere. But it’s no secret he has never liked Trump, has been very vocal about what a scum bag he thinks Trump is. So... was this really such an honorable and brave thing he did? 🤷‍♀️ 
    My opinion of him went up a notch but then down two notches as I evaluated the scenario. 
     
  13. Like
    carlimac got a reaction from mirkwood in So we’re not discussing Romney?   
    Succinctly said!
  14. Like
    carlimac got a reaction from NeuroTypical in So we’re not discussing Romney?   
    I really liked him but knew he wouldn’t win POTUS when I went to vote.Well I didn’t “know” but had a strong impression.  It was good for him to run but it wouldn’t have been good for the church if he were president. 
    Since then I’ve been sort of “meh” about his political moves. (I do like his wife though. She’s doing awesome things in the realm of neuro research and healthcare.) Go Ann!
    In the last 24-48 hours there has been a huge flip flop among my friends. Those who voted for him for senate now despise him. Those who couldn’t bring themselves to vote for him are now practically drooling at his feet. It’s a little sickening. And they were the ones criticizing him for flip-flopping. 🤔
    My uneducated observation is that he simply saw things differently than the rest of the clan. Came to a different conclusion. 
    But I can hardly call his one “guilty” vote heroic when he knew it wouldn’t actually oust Trump. His vote didn’t make any difference in the outcome. Would he still have voted guilty if his had been the deciding vote?
     I don’t like to judge. But it kinda looks like he just did this to ingratiate himself with his enemies. I don’t know. He seemed sincere. But it’s no secret he has never liked Trump, has been very vocal about what a scum bag he thinks Trump is. So... was this really such an honorable and brave thing he did? 🤷‍♀️ 
    My opinion of him went up a notch but then down two notches as I evaluated the scenario. 
     
  15. Haha
    carlimac reacted to Colirio in Impeachment question for experts   
    President Trump was acquitted by the senate. 
     
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate-acquits-president-trump-impeachment-vote
     
  16. Like
    carlimac got a reaction from person0 in Racial Error in Come Follow Me Manual   
    How is it a theory when 2 Nephi5:21 says  " as they were white, and exceedingly fair and bdelightsome, that they might not be centicing unto my people the Lord God did cause a dskin of eblackness to come upon them."  and then "And cursed shall be the seed of him that amixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done."?
    Did Joseph Smith translate this wrong? 
    If a person who is happy ( following the commandments, delighting in God's word, etc) mixes with a person who doesn't believe in God or feels "dejected", will their kids come out genetically gloomy and dejected? This just doesn't make sense.
     I think the church should just shrug and say, we believe this is what the Lord conveyed to Joseph Smith in the translation. We know God can do whatever serves His purposes. Obviously at that time in history when the Nephites and Lamanites were clashing, this is what He did. We don't know what that blackness looked like because we weren't there. It may have been a marking we wouldn't even recognize today.  There may no longer be any DNA linkage between this particular marking or skin and those that have darker skin today. It may not have ever touched Africa or anywhere else where people typically have darker skin.  We certainly don't automatically think of dark skin as a curse  today.  It's not a "thing" at this time. (Of course the Church spokespeople would say it more eloquently than that.) But if God felt the need to darken the wickeds' skin to protect the Nephites, then it was His prerogative. 
    I live around many people with darker skin. I don't think I'm racist. I think it is just silly that anyone outside the church would connect a marking God put on a people under certain circumstances, and condemn us as being racist today when we very clearly aren't.
  17. Like
    carlimac reacted to person0 in Racial Error in Come Follow Me Manual   
    The real problem, as I perceive it, is that the general populous of the world is incapable of understanding that repercussions of an act or event is indicative of the original actors and not those impacted.  Adam partaking of the fruit impacted the entire human race by subjecting us to mortality, pain, suffering, and death.  However, Adam and Eve were the ones who chose to disobey God; their children are subject to the repercussions of their action, but are not accountable for them in any way.  The unenlightened Christian world decided on their own that the opposite is true, that because of what Adam did, all mankind are individually and personally accountable for it, which is one of the stupidest man-made ideas ever.
    'Affected by' and 'accountable for' are very different in principle and application.  I believe early members of the Church were simply blinded by cultural norms and therefore failed to correctly connect the dots in understanding that skin tone is irrelevant to faithfulness and stature before God, at any point in time, regardless of whether or not it was a repercussion passed down by the actions of their ancestor(s).
    That said, just because I am not responsible for the actions of my father, do not mean I am unaffected by them.  The child of a convicted murderer may grow up without his father, but that is merely the effect upon the child, the father is the one who received the legal punishment.  If people will simply seek to understand this truth, it will help them far beyond the realm of race. 
    Do we not all believe that Christ was negatively affected by our sins?  And yet, how do we perceive and receive him?  If the Laminates skin was made dark as a curse upon the parents, does that change the righteousness of King Lamoni, or his father after they repented and came to a knowledge of the truth?  Do we yet see them as vile heathen?  What about Samuel the Lamanite?  Does anyone question his righteousness, or faithfulness?  Or do we see him as a prophet of God?
    Sometimes the affects of the sins of parents can impact their children in a way that deprives them of certain blessings during mortality.  That does not mean it is the child's fault and most certainly does not mean the child will always be deprived of those blessings into the eternities.  A child born with Fetal Alchohol Syndrome is negatively affected, for his entire life, because of the actions of his parents; does the mean he is lesser before the Lord?  No.  Does it mean that when I got a call asking to take in a child with said condition that I did not feel comfortable with voluntarily placing my other children in that situation?  Yes, it does.
    So, why are people bothered about the truth that a curse, including dark skin, was placed upon the initial ancestors of the Lamanites?  Because they cannot, or choose not to see beyond the mark, both literally and figuratively.  I see no problem with the way the initial passages were written in the manual, although a brief discussion on the principles I expounded above could have been useful, and in fact, would likely be more beneficial to the membership of the Church, than the assuaging language that is now in place.  I presume this may be a 'he who hath ears to hear, let him hear' situation.
  18. Confused
    carlimac reacted to Just_A_Guy in Racial Error in Come Follow Me Manual   
    Good points.  The “white and delightsome” change, of course, had the advantage of being in line with Joseph Smith’s edit to the 1840 edition of the BoM (we kept using a modified 1837 edition until 1981, so we were stuck with the unedited verbiage until then).
    But Joseph Smith was clearly on board with the idea of “whitening” the native Americans; and there’s some evidence that that’s how he got the idea for polygamy in the first place (LDS men taking Indian women as plural wives and raising up a generation of mixed-race children).
  19. Like
    carlimac reacted to Vort in Racial Error in Come Follow Me Manual   
    "To disavow" does not mean "to deny" or "to repudiate" or "to proclaim as false". Rather, "to disavow" means "to deny support for". In other words, the Church at this point steadfastly refuses to align itself with that particular scriptural and historical interpretation. That is a much different thing from proclaiming that the interpretation is false. The interpretation might well be true, or might have some elements of truth in it. But the Church doesn't support any such theory. That is the point.
    And to condemn "racism...in any form" seems obvious, so long as we understand what "racism" means (or should mean). It does not (or should not) mean acknowledging differences between people of different races. It does not (or should not) mean recognizing that there are unprofitable and even wicked culltural characteristics that end up being associated with race. It does (or should) mean that all people are recognized for their inherent value and are not prejudged or condemned for being a certain race.
  20. Like
    carlimac reacted to prisonchaplain in Purpose of blocking witnesses?   
    The Democrats still believe that dragging this thing out keeps up the negative new on POTUS. POTUS, of course, believes all news is good publicity. The GOP is tired, bored, and would rather govern and campaign, and so are sealing the deal. As for who the real adults are in the room the answer is that they all left the building quite a long time ago.
  21. Like
    carlimac reacted to Traveler in BYU to allow same-sex dancing at annual competition   
    As a landlord that caters to college students in Provo, Utah - and as a former student at BYU I am well acquainted with the standards of the university.   I am also well aware of particular individuals that well fulfill the prophesy of D&C 121 and implement protocols for departments at BYU that the oversee with the published standards that often do not make sense with their implementations.  I am also aware that there are some battles that are not necessary to be fought.
    It is not uncommon for multi same sex individuals to be dancing together.  It is very common with indigenous dances - for example native American dances and Polynesian cultural center dancers at Brigham Young University Hawaii often dance with many of the same sex.   There is nothing that demands that two ball room dancers of the same sex to be attracted to the same sex for sexual purpose.  This is not a battle that I think anyone with a IQ above room temperature ought to be willing to die for.   But I do not agree with @TheRedHen - breaking the Sabbath is never a good idea if there is any possibility to avoid it.
     
    The Traveler
  22. Confused
    carlimac reacted to anatess2 in BYU to allow same-sex dancing at annual competition   
    Don't underestimate the power of males to directly mimic the movements and visage of females.  Much harder for females to mimic movements and visage of males when muscle growth and strength is required - lifts are an integral part of ballroom dance.  And Dancing with the Stars proves every week that being the leader/follower in the dance is not gender specific.
    Blaire, pictured below, is male:

  23. Haha
    carlimac reacted to Vort in BYU to allow same-sex dancing at annual competition   
    No kidding.
     
  24. Like
    carlimac reacted to JohnsonJones in BYU to allow same-sex dancing at annual competition   
    There is irony in this part (not your statement, but in what the Church bureacracy has been doing).  I've found that the Youth for the most part are secure as long as their parents are secure.  The Youth go to church and for the most part, as LONG AS THEIR PARENTS are going they will go.
    I work with Young Adults through teaching them and thus being associated with them in the university system (edit: Not BYU's System).  In this, I suppose, is why I've occasionally (actually a lot in just the past few weeks) been asked about some Young Single Adults that I deal with in classes and otherwise.  It is at the critical juncture (at least with those that attend the university) where they leave home and attend the university that I see them leaving the church. 
    From my viewpoint, the focus has been on the Youth and very little on the Young Adults.  The church has taken what little there was for the young men to work towards in some ways and tossed it away.  Where a young man may see a Melchezidek Priesthood holder doing ordinances in the temple in the past with Baptisms for the dead, today, they will not see that as much.  Instead, to baptize any of the young men that are priests would be able to do it.  Once they get to the university...they simply fall away.  They have no goals.  They have no objectives.  They have nothing that they really are working towards in the Church.  Those that serve missions have already achieved that goal and now in the new environment seem to have difficulties.  Even among returned missionaries I am seeing them fall away.  Those who do best seem to be those that delay missionary service a bit and then go on their mission after attending a little bit and then return...but it's still no guarantee.  Girls seem to be more strongly connected to remaining active than Boys. 
    The critical juncture point I am seeing is not so much the Youth, the Youth will go where their parents will for the most part...but with the Young Single Adults and their transition during their late teens to their early 30s. 
    Much focus has been done on the Youth, but if  you lose their parents, you seem to lose the youth associated with that family as well in most cases.  If the family remains active, a greater percentage of the youth remain active. 
    With the Young Adults, I'm not sure exactly what is happening, but many seem to go inactive rather quickly (though more of the Single Men than the Single Women in my local and anecdotal experiences).  I haven't seen a lot of focus from the church on these groups so much as on the Youth.
    I know the idea that if they put a strong testimony with the Youth they will retain them...but for all the change I've only seemed to see a more rapid deterioration of the Young Adults (after being done with being youth, those attending the university at least) not sticking around.  Perhaps a change up where the focus is more on getting the YSA as families and focusing more on strengthening the family bonds where the YSA are more connected to their families that are active will help the problem.
    It seems there is so much focus on the Youth programs recently, but not a lot on the real backgrounds (parents being and remaining active, retaining them as Young Single Adults and providing better programs to help keep them motivated, give them goals, and keep them active in the Church) where I feel they are losing the university students (not all of them, there are some really strong students out their in the faith, stronger than I'd say most of us were at their age, but they are getting fewer and father between).
    It's still early in the process though, perhaps in the future there is much that will change regarding policies that will help retain the Young Adults (both single and married) better.
  25. Like
    carlimac reacted to mordorbund in BYU to allow same-sex dancing at annual competition   
    I just read over some of the rules. 
    My reading of this is that the leader has to stay leader for the duration of the competition, and the follower has to stay the follower throughout the competition. I think just by allowing the same-sex partners the boundaries will be pushed and it will not remain this way. And just to add to the doom and gloom, NDCA can't very well allow same-sex partners to change without allowing traditional couples the same advantage.
    TFP won't have to worry about cross-dressers this year, but I think this is going to be pushed. For starters, 2 ladies dancing in ball gowns will have a disadvantage to 2 men dancing in tail suits who will have a disadvantage to a tail suit/ballgown couple. A twirl with tails just isn't as eye-popping as a traditional gown, and fancy footwork can be easily lost in 2 layers of ballgown.