Anddenex

Has anyone seen The New York Times post, I'm unable to find it, with a rainbow banner or flag with bullet holes? I'm trying to see what post, article, a family member is calling out from The New York Times. I can't find anything representing this online. It's intriguing to me when some people leave the Church how -- all of a sudden -- they know everything. They even know what Christ would say, what Christ would do, how Christ would act, etc...while the whole time acting unlike Christ themselves. Want to see the article myself, as I can't trust what is now written, as it is just another diatribe against the Church and its leaders.

Great question, and something to really think about. We all learn line upon line and grace for grace. In that sense, our faith can grow or our faith can diminish. In all the experiences in our scripture the story that always draws my attention for this type of question is the Lord, the apostles, the boat, and a storm. In light of their fear, and we could easily justify the "fear" of a raging storm, the Lord said the following, "O ye of little faith." And this wasn't the only time the Lord said these words to his disciples. If we can have little faith, then we can have more faith than just a little. Strong faith vs weak faith is often discovered in our trials and temptations. No matter the temptation or trial the Lord remained faithful to his purpose -- the will of the Father. In some experiences we can see where our faith is stronger and in other experiences we can see where our faith is weak. The Lord has said, if miracles have ceased then faith has ceased. That is probably another good indicator of strong or weak, little or a lot of faith.

We need to enact an assault weapons ban to get weapons of war off America’s streets. This quote, is highly disingenuous, and it represents the dishonesty of politicians' at its finest. The concept of "weapons of war" leaves the statement open to every gun in the stores, which ultimately allows for the removal of the 2nd Amendment, or simply removing "shall not be infringed." Every gun from a .22 caliber pistol/rifle and higher are "weapons of war". The .22LR suppressed High Standard pistols were widely used in the Cold and Second world wars. The Colt M4, another .22 rifle was used also in war, and is still issued to the US Army. All hunting rifles. All muzzle loaders can be "weapons of war." And we will have useful idiots who simply go along giving up the rights they have, and which were instilled for their protection from tyrannical and dictator ploys by people who desire power and control.

Depends on the callings. If you have 4 callings that are only one Sunday a month, then adding another calling that is only one Sunday a month doesn't seem to be a heavy load. In other cases, 1 calling is sufficient and you shouldn't add anymore, and there shouldn't be any expectation from the leaders to add another. If you have a significant calling and the leaders are adding more on to you, then the leaders need to go back and read the Handbook more carefully. As to whether or not you accept another calling, that is between you and the Lord. Once you have one calling any other calling results in what you can truly handle. If I have one calling and am offered another my first thought will be, am I in a position to accept another calling? What is my work load? My concern here is that you say you can't work. If you have funds that allows you not to work, then great! If not, then you need to ask to be released from 4 callings, say no to the new one, and find a job so you can be self-reliant. Politely let leadership know, that you are overwhelmed and that you have other priorities that need to be accepted. Again, this is between you and the Lord. I'm just a random brother on the internet.

No, why should I? What happened in Germany is called "history" do you think it is insulting to talk about history and to learn from history so we don't repeat the same mistakes? What happened in Russia (Stalin) is history, do you think it is insulting to learn from Russian history and to recognize when another Stalin is rising, or a group of people like Stalin are rising? What happened in any other country or civilization when a tyranny thrives is "history", is history now insulting to learn from and prevent the same mistakes?

Nope, it was a general statement. The Nazi's didn't take power in one day, it was over time with micro changes that were supported by the people, by businesses, etc... There has been no leader that changed a government, that did it in one day. It has always been through micro changes with a supporting group -- that group will be business, that group will be parties, that group will be every day citizens who just blindly accept paths that lead down it -- we are already heading down it. Comparisons are one of the ways we learn -- objective and experience. It is very telling when immigrants that come from tyrannical governments begin to highlight aspects -- comparison -- of what is done and how they control their denizens. When we discount it, how long then will it take to become just another nation that loses what it originally had? And I'm not bothered at all by people who think comparisons with tyrannical regimes is bad or is taboo, that only aids in the reality of it happening again. Similar to the woke ideology, if you aren't a woman you can't speak about abortion, if you do your a misogynist. Recognizing aspects that are a reality, calling it out, like the North Korean immigrant is how we prevent it.

Already heading down that dark path -- and why shouldn't those freedoms be abridged -- if others can be abridged and you are OK with it, why not others? Are we going to realize what has been lost sooner, or be like the Germans who found out to late? If you are OK with some abridgements, what makes then your opinion on what others shouldn't be abridged as valid? What if someone disagrees and then it is abridged? Will you stand for it? What I have noticed is that individuals who make excuses for one thing will make excuses just as easily for another as long as they can justify the decision logically and rationally. Look at the riots as a perfect example, and hearing people "justify" the actions. We live in a world where calling a woman a woman and a man a man is now hate speech an exciting violence. Yes, already down this dark path dear brother where good is evil and evil is good. We will sadly see more of this as time passes on, as God begins to make the dark deeds apparent to those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

Mindblown, NBA is not a government entity? Dang I was taught the wrong thing in school! Columbia University, government or private?

This is the only part I would have a different opinion with as a result of actually speaking with anti-Mormons, and how these anti-Mormons have used this. Mormon, represents a group of people, its teachings, and its organization. This group has a leader. If the leader -- President Young -- had authorized the attack, then the statement "The Mormons murdered a bunch of people in the Mountain Meadows Massacre" is factually correct. When a "Mormon" decided to do something on his own accord the statement no longer is factually correct because it wasn't "The Mormons" it was an individual who belonged to the Mormon Church that acted outside of its teachings and against its leader. Let me clarify, when I used to engage in debate/argument on YouTube with anti-Mormons and those I wouldn't consider anti but didn't agree with the Church I came across an interesting post/comment, "I hate the Mormons! The Mormons raped my friend"! In the same light, this isn't factually correct. To say "The Mormons" you are tying the comment to the Church, it's beliefs, its people as a whole organization. In both cases this is an individual or individuals who professed to belong to the Church but did not abide by it's teachings. So, if someone says, "The Mormons...." I will definitely consider that person "anti" depending on the scenario. They are seeking to paint a small group of individuals as the whole Church -- which isn't factually accurate. A different example. In high school a friend of mine was gunned down by a black gang -- drive by shooting. If I started using this as a tool to show how "bad" black people are -- then yes -- a person has every right to consider me "anti" black. Especially if I said, "The blacks killed my friend." Factually this is incorrect. He may have been killed by a number of black man, but it wasn't "The blacks" who killed my friend. I'm likening a small group or individual to a whole population, which would be factually incorrect and wrong to do.

This is another YouTube video that highlights what is happening also with Kyrie. I have seen few videos from this woman. and what she has shared is very interesting. If sincere, and I can't say otherwise, when someone from North Korea points out ideologies that are prevalent in America -- resembling a communist country -- it is a little concerning.

The language is the part of the point, as it mimics nicely our current president.

This about sums it up nicely:

Awesome, that is another to add to the list of what I have heard. The other one I believe was Rueben (but I hate mentioning it because my memory isn't calling it correctly -- grain of salt).

This anecdotal evidence, is about as good if I said, "Looks like Twitter's new verification policy is going well...." and then posted a tweet from Kathy Griffin who was suspended for impersonating Musk.

This is a great question, which "let you down" ultimately believes our thoughts are greater than the Lord's thoughts, or our understanding of the how and why is greater than the Lord's understanding of the how and why. Yes, I personally felt this way 13 years ago as a result of two experiences in my life. I would think the women and children who were faithful burning in the fire (in comparison to the three in the OT) were being "let down" -- so to speak. I doubt they were happy, joyful, and having a feeling of this is great while be burned alive. I like this thought of supplemental evidence -- however weak it might be in comparison to the witness of the Holy Ghost. Supplemental evidence, the simple answer to a prayer from someone who visits you at the right time. The supplemental evidence of when a person says, "I don't know why but I need to share this...", and it is exactly what you needed to hear and were praying for. The supplemental evidence of a leader who decides to take you to the DI as they were shopping for another person and wanted your company. While there, they stop at a desk, turn to you and say, "I believe this is the perfect desk for you. You mind if I purchase it for you." Little did they know, a family shared, a couple days prior I had prayed for. We had no money, our kids clothes after being washed were always on the clean but dirty floor. I cried I could not afford it. There are many other stories, but these suffice for this OP.

I know of the following tribes revealed in PB, but don't know of any particularly region like you shared: Dan, Ephraim, Manasseh, Judah, Benjamin, Levi, Asher, and one more but don't exactly remember the one shared.

Good, let's run with this thought, how far do you want this to go then. Your concern here is death, with the "assumption" it could happen. Let's continue with someone who drinks. We know that people who drink are more likely to drive drunk. Company recognizes this, recognizes the person they hired -- who is driving into work -- might actually be drunk. This might look bad on the company. This means they decide to fire or not hire someone who drinks alcohol because they might drive drunk and kill someone on their way to work. Drinking while driving carries a burden of public safety. Easy examples, Taxi drivers, truck drivers, anyone who may or potentially drive a car (car rental places that pick people up). If I follow your line of thinking, because of a known cause of death, the company can now discriminate against hiring and firing an employee for simply "drinking." I don't mind this, you signed the contract. If Kyrie signed a contract, and was asked to remove something (which he eventually did) that solves the issue right there. Making things up, creating a "reprogramming" course, so that you have to think the way they do...it appears you would be good if your company had done that to you?

Well, he is doing better than Lebron (Nets have a better record this year), and gets paid less than Lebron. So, he is out performing the self-proclaimed "GOAT" of basketball. Seems like he is doing his job. Now we are talking about something solid, with meat. If you are hired to do a job and are unable to do it, well, that goes without saying. I doubt anyone here, including myself, would complain if they let him go or suspended him to some degree/level if he played 45 minutes and only scored 3 points. That seems like a legit reason to go over ones contract who is making roughly 35 million a year. These really aren't comparable. Suspended for a post about a book. Suspended for not doing your job. Seems one is right and the other is reactive.

I'm simply following the lines of your thinking, thought. How far do you want to go. If you say, an employer should address the problem before it starts, then this can include anything and everything. I'm already good with laws in place, including anti-discrimination -- that would mean against Kyrie, those who aren't vaccinated, etc... But, correct me if I'm wrong, you are/were OK with companies discriminating against people who aren't vaccinated. If what a person does, affects their work (what they were hired to do), then the company has every right, moral right, to act in their best interest. Easy example, I don't care if you drink and your employer shouldn't also (excluding obvious work places, and we shouldn't have to go into detail if we are being honest with ourselves) unless you come to work drunk, cause a ruckus, and are unable to do the job you are being paid for. Then, this is good means to talk to someone. Or maybe, let's continue down this rabbit hole. Employer knows you drink alcohol. This isn't an organization, a private Church (including a Muslim, Christian, etc...). Employer knows that drinking has lead to many issues -- death for one. Employer pulls employee in and says, I notice you drink. We are going to suspend you without pay because you drink, and we have seen the result of what drinking "can" lead to -- not that it does. If you want to continue working and get paid you will need to stop drinking. How far do you want to take this? Is it OK to discriminate against Kyrie for his beliefs, it appears you say it is, but then you will say they can't -- anti-discrimination. EDIT: I didn't notice what the heck that costume was! Lol, took me a moment. I would say your employer and friend I suppose online needs to have a sense of humor. It's a costume. Now, if you had dressed like a hooker (unable to figure out strike through), sorry, I mean lady of the night, with a g-string, and bunny ears I might say the employer is on to something when talking to you, but that is only if you were a model and you modeled lingerie and you were modeling a competitors line of clothing.

Right, let's follow this line of thinking. An employer recognizes they hired a "trans" individual. They recognize that this "trans" may cause issues. They have seen some posts they don't agree with, separate from their job responsibilities, so they take action. They talk with them, they suspend them to make sure their mandates are well known. An employer recognizes they hired a white male Christian. They have seen some of his posts about loving God and country, which many people hate. Seeing that this might cause some issues, they take action before it turns into something worse. They talk with them, they suspend them to make sure their mandates are well known. We now are walking a thin line here and a very slippery slope. This line of thinking seems very similar to Facebook and Twitter's community guidelines. Seems to me once again something can be weaponized against people.

This is the result of some of my family members. Rather than putting the Lord first, they put their pet priority over the Lord such that they now are willing to accept the truth, lifestyle, and decisions of a telestial kingdom rather than putting the priority of the Celestial first.

This is great, in light of the irony, and maybe @Godless can give Obama one of those "teaching moments" he is talking about.

The film you are speaking of is related to the post he tweeted. The film is based from the book he posted. There are plenty of other books in book stores that do the same thing. Nothing Kyrie has done is deserving of the treatment he is receiving. Lebron James has tweeted far worse things (especially toward LEO without any punishment, and I don't remember any apology from his team nor payment to the LEO for his words). Why then is Kyrie receiving such backlash from donating money to even the team donating money? He is an easy target due to his beliefs and ideology. If Kyrie fell inline like Lebron, we wouldn't be seeing what we are right now. He doesn't need to have any remorse. He simply posted a book. How many people have posted, read, or endorsed books that are really no different than H2N? This isn't accurate. You will need to watch what he said previously. He clearly stated his post was not meant to hurt, he even said just because you post a book or documentary it does not mean you believe or support everything in it -- and that is clearly true. How often do I hear a member Democrat say, "I can still be a Democrat and not support everything in it." He also clearly stated he wasn't antisemitic himself, by saying what you already quoted. That's good. Kyrie has money back in his pocket that he shouldn't have ever felt the need to give. He can give that 500K to a more deserving entity if he wants now. The ADL appears to be another erroneous group of individuals, seems similar to the BLM. And this is what is called "reprogramming." He shouldn't need to apologize. I admire Kyrie for not backing down and doubling down against a progressive form of oppression. Something to consider, look at the difference with Kyrie and Lebron. What did Kyrie post, and what did Lebron post? Whose tweet was a verbal threat and whose wasn't. How did each team respond? How did Lebron's team handle Lebron and his hateful defamation? Any money? Any true apology to the officer and LEO? Any payment from the team to the LEO for a true written/verbal threat? Any reprogramming for Lebron until he could correctly apologize for a verbal threat to a PO? I can't find any.

I agree, and I think the answer is clear -- no. Prophetic advice doesn't change unless it is specifically countered; although, now it is more upon us as parents to teach, set rules, and guidelines. @JohnsonJones actually makes a valid point with his grandson (I think he said grandson) and dating. At this point, I would still rely on what the counsel has been as a parent (similar to what I have already done with my daughter). I'm old enough also to remember this counsel, and I believe the counsel was from Spencer W. Kimball -- originally. The counsel then was also, but if you have prayed and God has confirmed then move forward with your witness, and then do what you said in your last statement. The counsel hasn't been countered, so the counsel still remains. This counsel, if I am remembering what I had been taught and read was more based in cultural interracial differences. The divorce rates were high for interracial marriages from different cultures (i.e. American marrying Japanese). If I am remembering correctly, statistics backed this up. The counsel is sound. There are some marriages that will not work still in our day if they are culturally interracial. Example, if a friend of mine who married a woman from his mission -- Japan (also why I used the example). Their marriage ended within 10 years. But the main counsel still exists, ask God if God confirms for both of you -- move forward. The point I'm making, if the counsel previously given has not been countered, then the previous counsel remains sound. I mean, let's be frank with this counsel, soon (scripturally speaking) we will all be one. At that point, the counsel will be null and void due to heart, mind, and decisions. Looks like from this I didn't make my point clear enough. I am in agreement here. The responsibility is on us, although that really never changed, as parents to teach in a way that our children can understand. We can still use previous counsel to back it up because that is the counsel. Also, with interracial dating, my daughter maybe one. She wants to live and teach in Korea. If so, the chances are high her husband could be from Korea. If that is the case, I would use the counsel already provided along with the most important counsel -- if God confirms then move forward and add what you said, "then do what you need to do to nourish that relationship so it will last."

Yup, we’re vastly far apart on this with no agreement. As pertaining to what is happening with Kyrie, yes, this is probably accurate. As to your examples, we agree to a point, which is very different than what is happening to Kyrie. An ad-hominem can even be used, and is often used when a person describes them as a particularly thing. I am a member of the Church. The whole concept surrounding an ad-hominem is exactly that, using what the person identifies as while ignoring their claim. The ad-hominem is how we use what a person identifies as or believes in. Its the attack that is important to character or belief. Example 1: If I ran a company that had a large LDS base of customers and an employee started Tweeting about how much he hates LDS, I’d fire him immediately. We differ in our decisions here. As a boss I would look to his output. If he did his job. Worked with the employees who were LDS soundly. If he were a manager and I could see he promoted both LDS and non-LDS. I would keep him -- good employee. This is America. He can choose to hate, love, or anything in between as long as he -- personally -- doesn't threat any personal injury or harm. Example 2: "Good employer" -- We agree. Response to example 1 already addresses this. Example 3: Kyrie absolutely has the right to free speech. I'm not sure you would honestly. I haven't seen you come out -- and I admit I only know you here -- with regards to pronouns. The force of pronouns is exactly that. Are you coming out and marching at all against it? This has everything to do with 1984, which those who profess to have read it but few grasp (see what I did there?). One of the most important characters is not the main character, nor the individual who slyly caught him. It was the woman highlighted, screaming, throwing tantrum, booing, etc... The government can not gain control without the aid of that type of individual, which is exactly what we see with Kyrie. The "woman" booing, screaming, falling down, pretending offense, or making something offensible that isn't offensive. Example 4: If Kyrie didn’t realize the controversy this would create, then yes, he is dense. This isn't accurate also. We all post many things we don't know or realize what it might create or result from. A good example, Lindsay Stirling who wore a dress that was human skin toned, but looked like a risque dress (immodest). Due to the crowd she follows, there was frustration. She didn't think it would cause a stir, in her mind, still modest and technically she was right. I wouldn't call her dense. Second, this was a published book by a publisher -- not just Amazon -- and probably a smaller company. Where is the outrage for this publishing company? Where is the outrage for those who produced the film? Why all of a sudden is their outrage when this book appears to be a top 10 seller on Amazon the last I read? Nope, but they have chosen a victim who posted the book in a tweet. "Heck, I’m the dumbest guy alive and I could see this was a bad idea. " -- something you don't really believe, tongue in cheek comment. It's why you let your voice known, because you don't think you are dumb. Similar to Huge Fly Fisherman's hat "I suck at fly fishing" which he totally doesn't believe but will use it when people direct a comment toward something he said. Example 5: Kyrie does not have the right to force Twitter (or any other private company) to give him a platform. He also has no right to force the Nets to pay him or endorse his views. He's not getting paid to endorse his views by the Nets. He's getting paid to play basketball which he is very good at. I don't see anywhere where Kyrie is forcing Twitter or any other company to endorse his views. Can you show me an statement where he has made such a comment? The Nets playing him isn't endorsing anything he does, just as if I worked for Donald Trump doesn't mean I endorse him as a "good" person. I worked for Warren Buffet, does this mean I somehow endorse everything Mr. Buffet does? No. That should be pretty clear, unless someone is really dumb and dense. (Yes, simile face is indicate I'm being snarky with last comment and example 4 ending comment.) If Kyrie was being paid for what he posted, for the Nets, then the Nets have a right to act against that as that is what they are paying him to do. Example 6: Google “Coleman Bonner Gatlinburg”. This degenerate took glee in the Gatlinburg fires that killed people because they were “Trump supporters”. His employer fired him in three seconds, as they should have. And this was on a vastly smaller scale. And rightfully so with this employer. Did Kyrie post about being gleeful for the Holocaust (did I miss something here?) But, we aren't just talking about posting a book here. This would be like a Church employee who then suspends or fires a non-member for posting a anti-Mormon literature book. And yes I have read some that would like all members to be killed, and I have read comments from anti-Mormons who have said, "I wish all Mormons would die." But as an employer, a good employer, why would I fire a good employee whose views are different than mine because he posted an anti-Mormon book that is "hateful." I would as a good employer look to his actions at work, not his posts online. Suspense or firing needs to be related to the work he is providing, and how well he/she works with their team or fellow employees.