Sunday21

I think it depends on what you qualify as such.  For some the answers would be obvious...and I think that's what you are trying to make them out to be...however...I will use it to illustrate a different point...that viewpoints do not always align with each other and sometimes what we may view as a way to define it is not how others may see it.
To Godwin the thread...
1.  Hitler mostly utilized speeches in public.  It was not even he who came up with what the Nazi's called the Final Solution, it was his underling.  As such, who was the greater evil, Hitler or the Germans who followed him?
2.  In the 1940s after the attack on Pearl Harbor the US sent thousands of Japanese Americans to what were basically concentration camps.  Now, it was with the threat of physical harm for the Japanese, as well as the fear of them doing harm to the US that caused such a travesty of rights to occur.  Some died in these camps.  Others remember.  Today, too many forget while remember the even greater horrors of the Death Camps of Germany, but of all the crimes against it's citizens of the 20th century, the threat to it's own citizens (the Japanese Americans) and imprisoning them because of it is perhaps the greatest.  Which is the greater crime then, the Japanese that the US fought in the Pacific and actually killed, or those Japanese Americans that they deprived their rights from and imprisoned in their own nation?
3.  In the 1960s and 70s the Vietnamese were trying to free themselves from a Tyrannical system of Colonization.  They were treated as third class citizens in their own home nation.  Many rebelled against this system.  Into this the US entered. They fought on the side of their colonial masters.  Some of the Vietnamese allied with the US, others fought against it.  The Vietnamese sought aid, and as the US was siding with those they opposed, they turned to other sources, one of which were the Communist who were more than happy to use them to fight a proxy hot war with the US.  The US killed many of these Vietnamese (and they killed many of the US soldiers and civilians that were sent there).
Which then is worse...#1, #2, or #3. 
I know it was made out to be clear cut, but sometimes things are not quite as clear cut as we make them.  In the first instance, even without doing the acts himself, WORDS, especially in politics and government have ramifications.  Words CAN be the instigator of other events, even if the one who stated them is not the one who actually executes the brutality they cause.  In the second, only those oblivious to the deprivation of rights (of which this thread is talking about, the preservation of the US constitutional rights vs. the rights granted in other nations) would say that such imprisonment and deprivation of rights (even though shelter and food was provided as such) is a good thing.  Finally, is War that we enter voluntarily a good choice in all instances?  Many would rank them as horrible with #1 being the worst, #2 being the second worst, and some even saying #3 was not a bad thing but something that was necessary (
from some points of view). 
I think the United States guarantees (or should guarantee, though that is being eroded to a degree slowly) certain rights as given in the first few amendments of the Constitution.  This is one thing that makes the United States unique among nations.  That does not mean all others need to agree with the United States, nor that their cultures see situations in the same way.  There could be multiple ways to answer your questions beyond what one may consider the obvious from another's point of view.  For those who want the rights granted by the US, they can move to the US.  For those who want the rights of Canada, they can move to Canada.  They may need to prove that they are worthy of such a thing (as so to attain citizenship, or at least the right to live and work in the chosen nation) but the world is a place full of different cultures and viewpoints.  If one wants to move to the UK, or the Japan, or to China even, let them do so if it aligns with their personal ideas and views.  It should be no surprise that there are different views regarding freedom, the right to freedom, the right to live as one wants, and how that is defined, in different nations and cultures.

Ok who prayed for me? Things got better today.  Probably anatess praying I get a brain. Jk anatess thank for your help.

Doing so-so. Read Radium Girls about women working with radioactive materials in northern states from WWII forwards. So depressing! But incredibly well researched and written. I was really impressed by the husbands of these women. They stood by there wives through it all!  

Ok. Interesting difference in cultures. Isn’t it nice that we found this out? 
I remember talking to an American female accountant who lived in Canada who was very angry that she could not conceal a handgun on her person. Now she had never owned a handgun, but the fact that she could not was disturbing.
The dinner party tried to explain why we felt that giving up handguns in our purses made us all safer. She was very unhappy.
But such differences just make us all more interesting right? Fluttering of eyelashes.
Are we not now a more interesting neighbor to have? 
Lets be honest. None of you were ever going to move here anyway, right? So really none of us have lost anything.
Your neighbors ro the north are just interesting and fascinating people.
Try to find us quirky and delightful!

Ok. Interesting difference in cultures. Isn’t it nice that we found this out? 
I remember talking to an American female accountant who lived in Canada who was very angry that she could not conceal a handgun on her person. Now she had never owned a handgun, but the fact that she could not was disturbing.
The dinner party tried to explain why we felt that giving up handguns in our purses made us all safer. She was very unhappy.
But such differences just make us all more interesting right? Fluttering of eyelashes.
Are we not now a more interesting neighbor to have? 
Lets be honest. None of you were ever going to move here anyway, right? So really none of us have lost anything.
Your neighbors ro the north are just interesting and fascinating people.
Try to find us quirky and delightful!

That's what stuck out most in the book for me. It modeled convicted civility. I'll admit I've had some less-than civil discussions on religion in the past and, although scoring points is fun and the intellectual exercise is stimulating, it frightens spectators. I've also attended a number of InterFaith dinners/activities and, I gotta tell you, the lack of conviction is frustrating. If we're getting together as Mormons, Muslims, and Methodists, I'm gonna need you to give a Mormon, Muslim, or Methodist answer to the questions. The discourse was so spineless that no one could stand for their beliefs*.
In contrast, this book showed two believers, who believed differently, able to really explore each others' beliefs because each had a well-defined belief and the courtesy to let the other define it.
 
*see what i did there

@prisonchaplain Now that you mention it, that is another big take away from the book. How to have a respectful conversation about these religious differences. I think that model can even go beyond LDS-Evangelical relations into other denominational relations (perhaps even the big Catholic-Protestant divide). Just modeling the ability to "disagree without being disagreeable" is a valuable skill -- especially with a topic that can be as charged as religion.

For some time now, @prisonchaplain has recommended Blomberg and Robinson's book. On one trip to the DI this summer, I came across a copy in good condition and decided I would pick it up and read it. Finished it this morning.
A basic synopsis of the book: The book consists of 4 chapters (plus an introduction and a conclusion) that cover four topics: Scripture, God and Deification, Christ and the Trinity, and Salvation. Each chapter consists of a portion authored by Blomberg explaining the Evangelical beliefs on that topic and concerns with the LDS position, a portion authored by Robinson that explains the LDS beliefs on that topic and LDS concerns with the Evangelical positions. Each chapter includes a joint conclusion where they summarize the similarities and differences.
We can talk about any of the chapters, if anyone wants to. A couple of overall impressions that stood out to me. I don't know if I was expecting some kind of ecumenical "bring us all together until we are singing Kum Ba Yah together by the end of the book", but my first impression was how neither author attempted to "gloss over" any of the main disagreements. Both authors, not in a mean spirited way, explained concerns and disagreements, while firmly explaining their convictions and their reasons for belief. For the most part, neither author made any concessions to the other in terms of belief, but neither did they attempt to misrepresent the others' arguments, either. I felt like each chapter provided a good opportunity for the reader to decide for him/herself just how different.
The other impression that stood out to me was my reaction to some of Robinson's arguments. Maybe it is our inherent "mistrust" (or unwillingness to rely on or whatever this is called) of professional theologians/academicians, but I found myself occasionally wondering if the official Church leadership and publication people (correlation committees) would completely agree with what Robinson put into this book. Our Church is more "top down" authoritarian, and Robinson is not among those who are responsible for declaring and explaining doctrine in the LDS Church. He has been published in the Ensign and by Deseret Book, so he is certainly not a nobody in Church publication circles, but he kind of is a nobody. His opinion is just his opinion and carries no real weight. I doubt that anyone in the top councils of the Church would have serious misgivings over what he put in the book, though. When all was said and done, I thought he did a good job of summarizing LDS theology on those points as well as anyone else (especially considering that we don't really have a rigorous theology to refer to).
Overall, I thought is was a good book. It does a good job, at summarizing each side of the chosen topics and how (most) Evangelical churches and the LDS Church can find agreement and disagreement.

Folks, if OP wishes to contribute further, he will.  No need to second guess his genuineness.  I remember back in the day, I agonized over a very personal question I was terrified to ask.  I remember creating a dummy account and posting the question from a public library on the other side of town.  I was able to sift through all the answers, and I never went back to that account.  With a few decades hindsight, I was going overboard on staying anonymous to ask my question.  But it was the biggest thing weighing on my mind at the time, and very embarrassing.
 

OP knew enough to make reference to the Law of Chastity...perhaps to give the initial impression s/he was a member. Then again, pull take out the religion. Take out the sex. The real question becomes a classic: Does the end justify the means? IMHO, we've all answered a resounding NO.

LOL.  I'm a willing life saver.  Any takers?
I call troll.....

I find this attitude odd. To me allowing public derision or belittling of a specific demographic group is abhorrent. I actually find this attitude to be just amazing like the time an lds American sent me a picture of what appeared to be a machine gun. He was very happy about his new purchase. Other than wanting to own a machine gun he was a pretty lovely fellow. Loved his wife and family. 
I guess this is why one belongs to message boards like this one. One learns such interesting things!
But there we have it. I suspect this is a cultural difference. I suppose that it is not unusual to find the behaviors and attitudes of others to be puzzling. I wonder how Australians feel about this. I have occasionally been shocked in watching UK tv when they make fun of the welsh or the scots. I was also watching an Australian show where they used a nickname to refer to Lebanonise people to describe takeout   food. I found this offensive. 
@askandanswer is it okay socially or legally to denigrate specific groups in Oz? Do you have prohibited grounds?
Well muchos interesting! Normally here educated people have a rule of not criticizing those in prohibited grounds situations. I think though that my attitude is not unknown in the US. I had an absolutely hysterical conversation with a English woman in her late 60s-70s. This English lady was spitting blood. As part of a charity organization’s work, she flew to Boston. The American administrator gave her information over the phone because the older English lady was not comfortable with email. The American administrator described the greeter who would meet the English lady at the airport to drive the English lady downtown. The greeter was also a volunteer. The English lady had difficulty finding the greeter and thus things did not go smoothly. Later the English lady discovered that the greeter was black. This information she had not been told. The English woman rounded on me in fury when she reached the Canadian leg of her journey and demanded to know why she had been told the greeters approximate age, profession, gender but not her race which in the English woman’s opinion, this information would have been the most useful. I tried to explain the difficult situation that the American administrator may have been in. The organization was run by retired experts from various fields. I have to deal with retired experts in my job and they can be a real pain and seriously touchy. So I can see why the administrator behaved as she did. I can also completely understand the point of view of the tired elderly English woman worn out by travel and dying for a cup of tea. In fact to me this story, the rage of the irate English woman and the conscientious American woman are so funny that I can barely type.
Of course, you may also be pulling my leg in a major way! Where is my foil hat? Its’s a conspiracy. I will ask prison Chaplin as soon as I can think of a tactful way to ask the question. 
After all I don’t want to offend anyone! 😂  
 

Well...in Canadian Employment Law, you can only be discriminated against if you belong to a group represented under prohibited grounds. Not sure how this works in the states. 
I know nothing whatever about US or Canadian consumer law.
In the US there are laws that outlaw denying service based on race etc.  This is statute law. The question is, how are these laws interpreted? - tort law.
There  are golf clubs that do not allow female members. From this article it seems that they do so by denying memberships to women.
https://www.si.com/golf/2019/07/01/private-golf-clubs-muirfield-augusta-women-discrimination
Back to employment law! 
in Canada, it is almost impossible to become a counsellor for alcoholics unless you have been an alcoholic. This is an issue of Bone Fide Occupational Requirement (BFOR). Similarly, Organizations can decide that you need to be Jewish to work in a Jewish community Centre. 
So could you limit a job to white males using BFOR? I think so. Is there some affliction that tends to afflict white males? Quite likely. In this case, counselors for this affliction could be restricted to white males using BFOR.

For those of you who asked for the update, we're having a little boy.

Dear friends whom with I have now long associated,
It is with regret that I have made the difficult decision to abandon this forum. There are a variety of reasons I've made this decision but the primary one is that the More Good Foundation and the progressive, false, mistaken lean of so many of their articles has made me more and more uncomfortable. I am, indeed, deeply uncomfortable with some of them and have considered leaving before accordingly. Deeply, deeply uncomfortable. I have to follow my conscience.
I do love the association and the discussion when it is doesn't turn nasty. The times it does turn nasty is the other reason I've made this decision. I've backed way off on my involvement from years past partially because of the nastiness. But part of that, I knew, was my fault, and something I had partial control over. The articles I have no control over.
I will check my private messages now and again for a few months. If any of you want to stay in touch otherwise then PM me and we can friend on Facebook or something. But I have simply become too uncomfortable in this particular house to continue dwelling here.
And, yes, I am writing this in a snit. I don't expect it will do any good, and many, many more would need to join me in the abandonment before it might do any good -- though I suspect that it might not even then. Apparently the More Good Foundation, without change of leadership, is going to continue down this path. I consider that path highly insidious and destructive. There's been hardly a constructive article written in the past few years. That which isn't harmful tends towards trite and shallow.
Because it is difficult for me to leave things hanging and not reply, which would defeat the idea of leaving -- I likely won't read or reply to any comments here in this thread.
It is, truly, a difficult thing for me to just walk away. But I feel I need to. And all I can do is that which I feel is right.
See you on Facebook if you like.
Goodbye,
Charles
P.S. Those of you who weren't my friends and held no charity or kindness for me -- well...I wish you well too. But regret the parting slightly less, if I'm honest.
P.P.S. I'll still be at the get-together at Tucanos and look forward to seeing those of you who are attending.

According to my daughter the last time we played (was somewhere around 2016), the goal was to cram absolutely as many children into the car as possible, and make husband sit in the back and cry.

That game would not be controversial at all

Massive congratulations! Also very cool gift! 

We need a saint version this game! 

So I sat with my kids this afternoon and we played Life.  For those who haven't heard of it (all 3 of you) it's the boardgame where you go through "life" with a job, income, kids, buying a house, etc.  The object of the game is to retire with the highest amount of money.
So my daughter ended he game with almost $2M and 1 kid.  She won.  I ended the game with... less money than that and also had 1 kid.  My son also had less money, and he had 6 (count 'em) 6 kids.  He had so many kids he needed a second car game piece to tote them all around.
So my daughter announced that she had won. (Which is true, by the game rules.)  But then a thought occurred to me, which I shared with them.  Her in-game persona will end the game of life with just one child to say farewell.  The same went for me.  But my son... his in-game self would pass on with an entire room full of people who love him.
I think the game rules have the wrong victory conditions.

So when my wife and I got sealed this year, I gave her this gift, which I'd been working on assembling and painting for about a year prior.  It's about 12" high total.  Just finally got around to adding the shrunk down copy of our sealing certificate to the base. 

 

Just thought I'd share, since you guys know what a big deal getting sealed is...

What a hellish job. I do not envy your niece. If that earns me a head-pat, so be it.

None of your business
You don't it's none of your business.

Not your business.  

You shouldn’t. It’s none of your business.