estradling75

Senior Moderator
  • Content Count

    7682
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    30

estradling75 last won the day on September 1

estradling75 had the most liked content!

About estradling75

  • Rank
    Senior Moderator

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Out of my Mind
  • Religion
    My own spin on the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. estradling75

    Canadian election

    We are not that hard to understand... We have the pilgrims who came to America to escape Government persecution. We have the Revolutionary War which was about escaping Government persecution.. Then if you are an American LDS then you have even more examples of trying to escape Government persecution. That is our history that informs on our culture... While others might not have this History... oppressive Governments are not a rare cases. So to understand this American mindset all one has to do is take whatever they think is dangerous and take that mindset and apply that to government. And bingo you have the American mindset.
  2. estradling75

    Canadian election

    Which is irrelevant and simply shows you are not listening... A pretty big failure for someone that started this thread looking for advice
  3. estradling75

    Canadian election

    What is hard to follow? You do not like guns right? You think the world would be better if guns were more restricted. A gun is powerful tool no doubt. And in the wrong hand it can be deadly this is also true. The government is also powerful tool, much more powerful and deadly then any individual gun. In the wrong hands it can be deadly to large groups of people. Therefore should it not also be highly restricted? Should it also not be highly limited? Yet you call for reducing the threat of guns and increasing the threat of government how does that make any sense? When you see and understand that your government is more dangerous to you then any gun will ever be.. then you will begin to understand.
  4. estradling75

    Canadian election

    It an understanding of History thing... You were taught about Hitler Right? He did not cause all the evil and pain and sorrow he did because of the power he had as an individual... He caused it because he got the power of the government. And as he was coming to power I am sure many of the people he later hurt didn't think the government would be coming after them either.... until it did. Thus the American Freedom view is about curbing government power as much as possible. That way if and when the next Hitler tries to come to power... there is no real power for him to have. His power is limited, his power is checked. Now you might just say... well don't elect the next Hitler... How is that working for you? You are asking which one you should vote for... figure out which one is most likely to abuse governmental power yet?
  5. estradling75

    Canadian election

    Really... let see what you have said earlier So its ok to publicly deride or belittle the fat or the ugly or the mouth breathers or the nose pickers or the tattooed... Are they not human too? Are the not entitled to equal protection under the law? Are they not also a demographic? What makes them less human then some one of African descent? What makes them less human then someone of a different sexual orientation? Once you start playing "protected class" game a case can be made for everyone to be protected.. and the only reason not to is because it makes the protected status worthless. Thus it is clearly not about "protecting people" but rather a power grab to enforce your morality on someone else.
  6. estradling75

    Canadian election

    About as seriously as a Canadian that is afraid to visit is America because of its "Guns" It is about being afraid of bad actors. Canadian are afriad bad individuals exercising unrighteous dominion. Americans are afraid of bad government exercising unrighteous dominion. Both groups have solid reasons for their concern. However history generally records bad individuals behaving badly as foot notes if it notices them at all... Whereas it writes whole chapters and books about bad government,
  7. estradling75

    Why Women Don’t Wear Pants to Church

    Maybe I was not clear... The most likely reason the bishop asked her about her pants being a sign of rebellion is because of the "Wear Pants to Church" movement founded by apostates... (Which is a perfectly valid reason in my mind). Thus the movement becomes directly responsible for the behavior it claims it is trying to change. The author of the article instead of critically thinking about "why " the bishop asked the question. Instead she jumps to her own conclusion. So the irony is the movement causing the behavior they are say they are against. And the irony of some one demanding people not to make assumptions of her behavior and actions while clearly making her own assumptions about the actions and behavior of others.
  8. estradling75

    Canadian election

    @Sunday21 you and the others are talking past each other because both sides have presumptions that I do not think the other side is really considering. You talk about needing people both as a country and as your local ward. However your presumption seems to be that anyone that you get is going to roll up their sleeves and get to work bearing their fair share of the burden and by so doing make every thing a bit easier. And you are so right, in that case what is not to like? I fully support those kind of immigrants here in the USA too. However my experience is that there is a subset of immigrants that are not going to do that. They are takers. Possibility criminal, possibly lazy maybe even both (which has nothing to do with skin color). I am reasonably sure you do not want these types. No one in the right mind really does. This is the assumption that many others in this thread have. If you have immigration you have to have immigration filters (you called it points) to weed out the undesirables. If you have filters as a matter of law then you need to have the freedom to discuss, to debate, to criticize.. because that is how you keep the filters healthy and responsive. You can't do that if people have to fear being called racist for even trying to have a healthy discussion about it.
  9. estradling75

    Why Women Don’t Wear Pants to Church

    That is the irony I was pointing out. "Oh no the bishop is oppressing me by asking a question because I wore pants.. So I need to support or otherwise join a rebellion who very existence is the reason the bishop asked his question in the first place."
  10. estradling75

    Why Women Don’t Wear Pants to Church

    Correct in a general sense... However in the case of the article she convicts herself with her own words... No mind reading required. And it swings both ways... accusing bishop (or other church leader) of wrong doing because they asked a contextually relevant question when we do not why... is just as wrong
  11. estradling75

    Why Women Don’t Wear Pants to Church

    The bishop in the article did exactly that (if you take her word for it)... While I think it is very silly... but if you are going to associate with apostates you really have no room to complain if the leaders question if you are one.
  12. estradling75

    Why Women Don’t Wear Pants to Church

    The ironic thing is.. the bishop asked because of the "wear pants to church" movement. I would wager that if that movement had not happened the bishop would not have said a word. The Church standard is Sunday Best. That has always been a personal call, with culture having an influence. The culture of women being limited to dresses was already fading naturally all on it own. Simply by all the women making there own personal call on what there Sunday Best was. And yes there was some push back by individuals who like to impose there own will, that is the nature of sinful people. But it was and still is going away. Then there was the rebellion...(and yes that is exactly what it was an organized rebellion). Cultural rebellions happen all the time... but these apostates targeted our worship service and that provoked the reaction that has powered this thread. And gets otherwise innocent people in the cross fire. Because now Church leaders have to at least consider a woman wearing pants to be in open rebellion. (Which is kind of silly but that is the effect of the actions of these apostates)
  13. You do not tell someone that they should not attend the ward. It is not your stewardship, it is not your prerogative. However nothing requires you to support actions you disagree with. The moment they ask you for 'help' that gives you a limited stewardship and prerogative. You can say no to rendering that aid. If you respect that limit you are on solid ground. Beyond that you need to leave it be.
  14. I think your approach is full of fail.... It does not mean I misunderstand it.
  15. If you wish to believe in Trinitarianism that is your right... But lets remember the context of this conversion. Joseph Smith was not Trinitarian. His revelations where not Trinitarian, yet you are trying to cram them into that box and failing to make even the most basic of progress. Because they are not compatible. This is a basic and fundamental understanding that you are being obtuse to.