paracaidista508

And another

Heres another one unix knight.

JFYI- The following soliloquy is based on my experience, not some newspaper article or something my 70 year old uncle who was a cop told me. Background: 24 years combined service in Military and LEO. Served on active duty in the Infantry and as a cop. Nearly 100% of police career was on the street at night on a large agency. Large being a matter of perspective, but it is a serious well-known agency. I was a Tactical officer (SWAT, SAU etc whatever you want to call it) and have been on hundreds of tactical incidents to include at least 100 high-risk warrants). Military-wise two deployments in combat and not behind a typewriter…behind a gun. Retired now thankfully. Here goes- it is long but it may prove to be informative. As long as policing has been around, there have been critics of it from within and without the police community. Generally speaking over the years while I was a cop, our biggest enemy was our own administration. Typically police admins are made up of ladder climbers who did about three years of patrol and a couple other misc assignments and then somehow made it to top tier positions within the dept, but they ultimately know nothing about how to be a cop. The public was often a bigger supporter of police than the admin was until probably the past ten years or so. Recent publicity surrounding officer involved shootings, militarization etc have led to much more criticism of the police (some deserved, some not) and hence the discussions. Part of the problem with this is that typically the opinion of the police in these matters is often disregarded. TYhe admins become our spokesmen but they are really just politicians and solidify their careers through administrative executions of street cops. The critics in the public are largely so ill informed in these matters it renders their opinions pretty much baseless. Reason being is A- they have no skin in the game other than taxes and B- they have no idea what is going on around them in their communities. Their only experience with the police is getting a ticket and what they see on the news. Anyway- I’m going to address some things here about the police to help educate. I'm not here to spar, fight or pontificate on all the what-ifs. Just here to give perspective. Several topics are going to be elaborated on so get ready for a long post: Selection of police officers: All agencies and states have different standards, but they are all similar in the basics. Background, physical/medical/mental. Fact is majority of US citizens including those you sit in church with (LDS too) cannot pass the background check in regards to morals and criminal behavior. A friend of mine who is LDS worked hiring for four years and he told me the backgrounds of the LDS applicants were every bit as screwed up as everyone else. The only reason he could tell some of them were LDS is because of their last name or the fact they spoke fluent Spanish and lived abroad for two year (mission). The general population of the US is ok with a certain level of crime (theft, fraud, drugs, sex offenses) so long as they were the ones doing it. As for all the other issues people vary in intelligence, physical agility and mental health. People often wonder why there are fat cops…well our administrations wont let us work out on duty like the Fire Depts do so legally they cannot enforce physical standards as a standard of continued employment. This being the case, the dept cant fire you for being fat. It is a personal thing if you want to be fit. I worked the street for nearly my entire career and have been involved in wayyy over a couple hundred forceful arrest and violent situations. I felt it was in my best interest to be as fit as possible so if anyone kills me with fists or a choke, they at least get a trip to the hospital to get bullet holes patched, bones set and eyeballs put back in their sockets Mental health: Police applicants who make it that far in the hiring process undergo a psychological evaluation and yes some wingnuts make it through. Problem here is we are evaluating people for their potential to be mentally resilient to the mental rigors of the job, yet remain calm and collected enough to be able to reason through a situation without flipping out or making a horrible decision. We must remember that outside of someone applying from another agency, these applicants have never done this stuff nor ever been exposed to it. In fact, many nowadays have never been involved in a fist fight at school so we don’t know if they will even engage when called upon to do so. Our field training programs are generally about 16-20 weeks long depending upon the agency. This is the time where we get to look at a recruit, mentor them and hopefully see them get involved in a violent mess so we can assess their ability to deal with it according to their training. One group we got out of the academy had a new recruit get shot in an ambush on his first night on duty. He still works there. Bottom line for hiring: Historically we only find 2/100 applicants suitable for hire. Most Americans cannot make the hiring process for a variety of reasons . This includes most of you reading this. That is for even the agencies with the lamest of hiring standards. That isn’t meant to be a slam, it is reality. As the US has hundreds of agencies nationwide, the standard for hiring and training varies and is often geared towards LOCAL norms and community expectations. The larger agencies (500+ Officers) usually are on a similar sheet of music when it comes to standards, training and tactics. Many are members of CALEA. Body Armor: When these discussions of militarization come up oftentimes the exterior “military style” vests are a topic of discussion. Most of what you see on the street is a street cop is wearing it is what is called an “outer vest.” This is usually just a regular patrol vest in a different form. With all the equipment cops have to carry now, it is much easier to carry that stuff on an outer vest and leave the pistol, ammo and cuffs on a belt. Most agencies require a patrol officer to carry on their person a pistol, three magazines of ammo, pepper spray, two handcuffs, expandable baton, taser w/extra cartridge, pens, notebook/cards, radio, vest etc… My old agency you could be disciplined if caught not carrying that stuff. The outer vest makes that easier and also it has been found to reduce the number of lower back issues. Back issues sideline many cops during the last 5 yrs of their career and you as a taxpayer get to pay for their medical and tax free retirement….so we are just saving you money. Back to the vest: A patrol vest typically is a level 2 or 3 which essentially stops nearly all pistol rounds known to exist except some 22 mag and 5.7 FN cartridges. Also this will stop some very low velocity rifle and most shotgun projectiles. Keep in mind, this only works where the body is protected. Every officer I know of who has been shot whether they be dead or alive was hit in places other than the vest. These vests do not stop 99% of rifle rounds. A bullet fired from a 30.06 or a .223 will go through them like a hot knife through butter. Now there are some tactical vests that are level 3s which also have a ballistic plate in front and or the rear. These don’t offer much coverage but better than nothing. These plates will stop several impacts from an AK47, Ar-15 or a 450 marlin. Given that suspects and many cops are not the most stellar marksman while they are being shot at, even officers wearing these vests often get hit everywhere else except the plate. Enough said there. Camo Uniforms: Actually this is rare. My former agency doesn’t have any I have ever seen, but they do wear Olive Drab on the Tactical Team (SWAT, Special Assignments etc..) The vast majority of the other equipment they wear is also green or the same as the military uses. These officers are not running around on patrol wearing this stuff. They are exclusively used for high-risk situations so you will never see them. I live in the same city I worked and to this day I have never seen any patrol cops dressed in camo or anything other than the LAPD blue patrol uniform. I'm sure it happens here or there but as a matter of regular duty uniform I highly doubt it. Some may say, well why do they need a military uniform??? Well these uniforms need to be functional for what they are doing, be durable and also flame retardant (nomex). The LAPD blue polyester uniform is not a good SWAT uniform. I wore mine a couple times on emergency callouts that lasted nearly a day and they were trashed when I was done. Ultimately what does it matter? Once a situation has deteriorated to the point that someone is spraying bullets, has hostages or is trying to escape into the community to either get away or continue to do harm; who cares about their sensibilities when it comes to the cop’s current fashion statement? Armored Vehicles: I love this part. First of all, the conversation here makes it sound like the cops are out patrolling the city in these things. Like the military vests and camo uniforms discussed above, I have never seen this happen where I live or in the surrounding area. I have seen these vehicles, but they were obviously going to an incident, training or maintenance. There are many types. As for the MRAPs, there are a lot out there, but most are sidelined because no one knows how to maintain them and most of the agencies who got them can’t afford the parts. So they are being stored for the most part. In my local area (6 million people) I don’t know of any agency that has one. Almost all use the bearcat because it was designed to deploy and protect cops and it does that very well. I won’t say how many my agency has, but it is more than 1. I only wish we had them when I was a tactical officer. In the past, most agencies used decommissioned armored cars. What is an armored vehicle used for? Well it is used to deliver officers right into a hot scene while being protected or as a means of extracting people from gun battles with some armor to protect them. We have done this with civilians and cops. They are used to breach fortified homes while under fire…yes this happens and we have done it several times. In the Ferguson riot situation is was a platform higher than the crown where the observers (snipers) can watch the crowd from a vantage point and warn the front line about people approaching with bricks, weapons etc. If someone starts shooting, they have a hard time hiding from the guy on top of the armored car. The car also offers cover from bricks. Riot shields do not offer much protection from bricks. Patrol cars with armor: Most new patrol cars these days come with an option to have ballistic panels inserted in the doors. The windows are still made of glass and the body of the car is still made of steel which handgun and rifle rounds will penetrate to varying degrees. Most agencies do not have these ballistic panels in their vehicles. K-9 Use: Oftentimes the public will ask why a K9 wasn’t used instead of some other form of force. Well simple reason: 99% of cops don’t have a dog in their car and many agencies don’t have one at all. The majority of incidents happen within a minute or two of contact and is over with at this point. Go research how much a dog, the training and the handler cost and get back with me if you still think you as a taxpayer can afford it. Oh, and when we do use a dog it is almost always labeled as excessive or racist anyway. They are a great tool though and they are used as often as necessary and when they are available. My agency always had 2-3 available each night, but they rarely could get to an incident before it was over. While a tactical officer we used the k9 all the time with great results. TASER: This is one of the best tools ever and it saves lives every day. Some people who would have otherwise been shot have lived productive lives and continued to commit even more crime. Perhgaps in some cases the bullet would have been a better option, but I digress. I easily would have at least 4 more shootings to my credit if it were not for the TASER. I’ll leave it at that. Officers with mental health training: Many police shootings involve a mentally ill person. I was involved in a suicide by cop. Wasn’t much time to get out a couch and talk things over with him as he opened up on us with a handgun as soon as we got to the house. That is how most of them go because they want us to kill them. Many police agencies get officers trained in how to deal with mentally ill people, but given the time necessary, the expense and the logistics of all of it; it is not feasible to train everyone. Cops get pretty good at it though due to experience. Looking back I probably dealt with a mentally ill person every single shift if I was to average out the encounters. I only got in a shooting with one so I feel pretty good about the results. Officer Involved Shootings: I Love this topic because it is so misrepresented and misunderstood. The best line ever is, “I don’t know why you guys shoot so many people, my uncle was a cop and he never even took his gun out of the holster cept to go poop.?” My response is well that was 30 years ago and it wasn’t socially acceptable to shoot cops like it is now. Anyway, this all depends on where you work. I spent the first 8 yrs working swings and graves in the nicest part of town and frankly I don’t know if I had a shift where we were not taking people off at gunpoint. Im sure there were some, but just to make up for it some shifts I did it three or four times. We had tons of gang activity and white trash meth heads in my precinct so gunplay isn’t too unusual. I recall one shift, my buddy and I were on a call and he ended up killing a suspect who attacked him with a knife. Before the end of shift, another officer just a mile south of us ended up in a shooting with another guy attacking people with a knife. Our area had shots fired calls every single shift, every single hour of the night and many times we got there and there were people on scene with holes in them. Some were dead and some alive. Sounds pretty bad, but is doesn’t even hold a candle to LA. Most officer involved shootings happen within seconds of making contact with the suspect. Sometimes you don’t even get to get out of your car. One buddy of mine got shot several times as soon as he knocked on a door and another one took a couple rounds as soon as he drove up on the call. The other responding officers killed both suspects who did those shootings. I have personally been in two shootings and on-scene for between 15 and 20 others. A couple were while I was a Tactical Officer (SWAT) and the rest while in patrol. I have been shot at quite a bit mostly by pistols, but for sure one AK47, couple AR15s and a shotgun. I was on scene for a shooting with a suicide by cop guy who in my opinion didn’t need to get shot (yet), but was by someone who was more scared for their life than I was at the time so I guess its all good. We paid out on a lawsuit on that one. Small payout, but we lost the claim nonetheless. Body cams will bring more of this to real life in the future, but for now you will have to just believe we don’t want to get into these shootings. I and we will pull the trigger if it comes do a decision between which of us gets to die though. I will say that much. As for the “high frequency” of these shootings, there are less now than there have been in a long time. They just get more publicity now. While I worked patrol, only about half the shootings our dept got involved with ever made the paper or the TV. “Just shoot them in the arm or leg or use Judo…” You do it idiot if you are that good. Here is the deal; that is often said about dealing with knife wielding suspects. As many stabbings and shootings I have seen I can comfortable say I would rather get shot than stabbed. My job description doesn’t say I need to take a slashing knife attack just so I can nicely get a suspect into cuffs. People who want us to do that have never seen knife wounds. If you want to see some Google is your friend. As for me: pull a knife on me and I will shoot you. I may even give you some verbals to drop the knife if you give me a chance. Cops are never held accountable or arrested for crimes: False- I personally have arrested two cops. My agency has arrested several of our officers over the years for a variety of stuff. The administration at nearly every agency I have associated with is regarded as mush more perilous to an officer’s career than the public can be. In Arizona we have an organization which oversees and review terminations (AZPOST). Go to their website and read about the various things cops get terminated for here. In the personal lives of cops, per-capita we are much less likely to break any law (except for traffic laws) than their own neighbors. Just in my own neighborhood I know of several people who are regular law-breakers and many of them are in my ward. Stealing, fraud, drugs and other violations. The other ones I don’t know about because the ward gossip mill doesn’t know about it. ON EDIT...I forgot Guns: We carry Glocks primarily. Flashlights can be mounted to these pistols to aid in building searches and free up an officer's support hand to do other things like...suppor the pistol to increase the quality of marksmanship. Ar-15s. Yep lots out there. In my region we went to these about 15 yrs ago after there were several gunbattles with suspects who wewre armed with AR15s or AK47s and wearing body armor. Traditionally at that time SWAT teams were armed with MP5 submachine guns (terrific CQB weapon for its time btw) which are 9mm. These bullets dont go through body armor so we got AR15s instead. Also the patrol shotgun went largely by the wayside becuase an officer could more effectively handle an AR15 as opposed to a shotgun shooting slug or 00Buck. The ar15 ammo we use is tipped with Hornady vmax (or similar) bullets as they are highly frangible and dont go through much in terms of barriers or people. I have only seen a few that are full auto and they reside with the swat team. The majority of these rifles are in the cars of patrol officers and they are semi-auto. Anyway- just some of my experiences with police work. I am also a critic of cops to some degree, but this militarization thing is a bunch of garbage. I mean think about it: The average ratio of cop to citizen in the US is 2/1000. Does anyone really think that the police could take over our communities? I know in my city the ratio is more like 1.25/1000 so even less of a chance. Oftentimes the equipment they carry is military style in terms of looks or firepower. As for looks, yes. As for firepower, not even close. My platoon in Iraq had 16 humvees, 16 .50 cal MGs, 8 M240B MG, AT4, frags etc and everyone with an M4 carbine or M249 SAW. 50 troops armed like that. I have never seen any police organization in this entire country who has that kind of firepower at their disposal. I know for a fact if I brought in that Platoon to this city I could lay waste to a significant number of the cops before we were nickel and dimed to death by the armed citizen or police. Until that time, though the police would have a heck of a job on their hands dealing with firepower that can trash cop cars and buildings from 1000 meters. Their helicopters would only get a couple passes before the airspace was filled with 50 cal rounds. People who say the cops firepower mirrors the military are crazy. They say that because their view is based not on knowledge, but on suppositions and fear. Go join the Army or Marines if you want to see what firepower is. Compared to that, our police might as well not even be armed. So- militarization???? Not even close. As a former cop and military guy I can comfortably say we have nothing to worry about. If you are worried about it quit participating in riots and running a methlab in your home or dealing arms. If you are not doing those things you have nothing to worry about. I am in the same boat as you and I lose not one wink of sleep over it. I will close with this: There is not one single police agency who has written in its job description that police officers are supposed to get stabbed, shot, beaten up etc. The law doesn’t even mandate we subject ourselves to that risk. In fact, the law has established that we have absolutely no duty at all to risk out lives for anyone. The law does stipulate though (at least in AZ) that a police officer has no duty whatsoever to retreat….. ie run away. That isn’t in our nature anyway, but in the future in many municipalities I see the continues hostility towards the police to lead to a situation where they wont get there till it is definitely safe to do so. We are already seeing that is NY, Chicago and a few other places. Their crime is skyrocketing because it is easier for the cops to just go clean up than it is to do their jobs. I mean hey it’s a lot easier to defend what happens if you were never there…LOL

This is why military style body armor and auto weapons are necessary. This is my friend getting the crap shot out of him. Read the commentary below the vid for addtl details.

Generally people side with Democrats or Rebublicans. Sure there are other parties, but for the purpose of this exercise read the Party platform I linked to for the two parties and see if you can find anything in either platform which is against the LDS religion. The party platform for each party is published approx every 4 yrs and lays out a plan and direction for the party. One can generally safely assume their candidate will generally follow and support that platform....usually. Anyway have fun. https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/docs/2012GOPPlatform.pdf https://www.democrats.org/party-platform I found a few in the dem party platform: Bolded text is my emphasis 1- The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. 2- We support marriage equality and support the movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples

Where did I pass judgement on anyone? Call me whatever you want, but please point out where the WOW states anything that would support unhealthy eating and the resulting decline in health due to obesity. Like I said before. I have a problem in this area (I'm fat!!!!) so if you want to get offended by one of the members in the fat person 12 step program saying hey I'm fat and so are some of you (whoever chooses to be offended) and we should do better then I suppose you are going to have to get offended. Sorry, but nothing I have written is contrary to the WOW. The only thing I am doing is trying to figure out why the church ignores this. A good read...: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2014/02/nourishing-our-bodies-and-our-spirits?lang=eng

Here is a scenario. After I describe it, I will list a series of situations. Decide which one of each of the three situations would result in the loss of a temple recommend. Situation: I go to Bishop for recommend interview. I tell him I lost my job, am nearly out of money and am depressed about it. I have gained 30 lbs in the past 6 months. My DR said I have to lose about 40 lbs as I have high blood pressure and coronary heart disease. No diabetes or other illness which causes obesity- I just like to eat etc…. Bishop asks what has caused the weight gain: a- I started drinking to deal with my depression. b- I now smoke MJ to deal with depression and eat too many Doritos c- I use food as medicine and I cant stop. It makes me feel better. Me (same person as above) walking out of convenience store with_______ in my hands and the Bishop is walking in at the same time and sees me. a- A 12 pack of beer b- A carton of smokes c- A 64 oz soda and dozen doughnuts My wife goes to RS pres and complains that I am depressed and need help. I don’t work, look for a job or do anything but sit around. While doing this I _____ . Which answer would cause the RS pres to go to the Bishop to get immediate help? Prob all three, but only two will cause loss of a recommend. a- Drink beer b- Smoke c- Eat, eat, eat We get appt with Bishop to get foodbox from Bishops storehouse. He asks to see our records to go over financial eligibility and bring in a typical receipt from last couple grocery trips. He looks at the receipts and sees______ . Which one will result in loss of recommend? a- Alcohol b- Cigarettes c- Lots of hostess, Doritos, soda etc There are only a few things anyone cares about. There may be more that should be addressed, but we do not dare do that.

Here is how I do it. May be right, may be wrong, but it works for me. Take home pay is what I pay the 10% from. I used to save a significant portion of my pay at one time when I was very well compensated (in my opinion) and it went into my military 401K equivalent. My wife and I both decided that since we would be drawing from it in retirement the math would be very easy to do then rather than trying to figure out exactly how much of each withdrawal actually needed to be tithed-esp since we were not using the money for anything at the time. Additionally, the investments would likely grow significantly over the next 30 years or so due to compounding and there would be that much more to pay tithing from and the church would benefit even more from it. Also, we could potentially afford to go on a senior mission with those funds. Anyway- that’s how we do it. As for blessings from it??? Personally I don’t know for sure, but this is what we have seen as a result of how we determine income and what amt of tithing should be paid. While in the Army a few years ago I was injured fairly badly and went through about three years of treatment to get me stabilized and back to functioning order. I had permanent damage done to my brain, some organs, bones and nerves. The end result is while I may be functioning, I have been permanently injured and the end result was that I lost my job with the military as a reward for doing my job as I was not fit for duty anymore. I’m lucky to be alive I suppose. At least I get to see my kids grow up. So how does this relate to the method I chose to tithe? Due to the fact I was losing my employment from the Military, I was faced with having to get my family in a secure situation and start over. The injuries do not prevent me from working, but they prevent me from getting employment in my degree field and/or the field in which I worked in the military. I am able to get employment which commands about a third, maybe half if of what I usually make. Back to starting over- in order to get my family situated it cost me a significant amount of money which came from the retirement plan we had been saving in for nearly two decades and it depleted most of it. I paid the 10% early withdrawal penalty and tithing too. Llong story short we are ok and will be fine. If I would have tithed that amount before we put it in savings we would not have had the money available to take care of my family. I know this because I did the math. The money would not have been there. The time I had to do this was after the 2009 market crash so 50% of my money wasn’t even there anymore. Were we blessed for it or not? Beats me, but I’d like to think so.

Before I get accused of making a fat joke- Elephant in the roomFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia For other uses, see Elephant in the room (disambiguation).It is based on the idea that an elephant in a room would be impossible to overlook."Elephant in the room" or "Elephant in the living room" is an English metaphorical idiom for an obvious truth that is either being ignored or going unaddressed. The idiomatic expression also applies to an obvious problem or risk no one wants to discuss.[2]

Sure it is a valid comparison: 1- Mission service is a directive, suggestion or whatever you want to call it. If it is a commandment, how come not going does not change a member's standing in the church? (other than socially) I smoke a cig or have a beer and it does, but not going on a mission changes nothing. That being said, it is very clearly optional and there is no penalty, punishment or anything like that other than some girls wont like you.Oh, and you wont lose a temple recommend over not going. 2- The WOW says what it says about eating and it is obvious this is probably the most ignored and disputed topic ever... I even mentioned I have a problem with it in another thread and I was subsequently accused of claiming to be "perfect." People get so blinded with rage over this they dont even comprehend what they read. Anyway- we shall not discuss the elephant in the room.

Where is the thread?

paracaidista508, on 09 Oct 2015 - 1:41 PM, said: No coffee, no tea, no tobacco...................NEVER You missed one. paracaidista508, on 09 Oct 2015 - 1:41 PM, said: Also not supposed to eat in excess which would cover the excess we have at church in terms of desserts and dinners with people lining up for thirds, fourths etc, Incorrect. I didn't miss the strong drink I left it out...he is having a prob with 6packs of coke. Now as far as the gluttony thing goes. My mistake...I thought the wow specified sparingly, prudently and with thanksgiving? Anyway we all get carried away with worrying about this stuff. Kinda like when the prophet says every worthy young man should go on a mission and people line up and say it is a commandment. He said should not shall. There is a difference. One may say we'll you just choose to interpret the mission adminition that way... That would be correct and it is no different than people eating like pigs, not exercising and becoming an overall slothful individual choosing to interpret the wow the way they do.

Heres how the WOW really works... No coffee, no tea, no tobacco...................NEVER Also not supposed to eat in excess which would cover the excess we have at church in terms of desserts and dinners with people lining up for thirds, fourths etc, but we wont talk about that part as it is essentially overlooked pretty much without exception. Diet coke?? Well it does have caffeine in it and I'd have to say drinking several a day would be just a slight overindulgence. It is bad for you. Caffeine is not prohibited by the WOW. Try energy drinks as an alternative. The church posted a magazine article stating how terrible they are, but stopped short of saying not to use them. Thusly they are OK. They make coffee, tea and your diet coke look like a nodoz compared to crystal meth. https://www.lds.org/ensign/2008/12/the-energy-drink-epidemic?lang=eng For the record- energy drinks are ridiculously stupid to drink.

If there is no problem with this, then why not make young single RMs (males) Laurel advisors? Just sayin

Can we blame him for skipping a root beer summit with Obama? I'd say anything to get out of that meeting.

My own personal experience why... I joined the military when I was 18 and still a senior in HS. Everyone knew about it and I was pretty much harrassed by my bishop, priest quorum leader, several members of my ward and even my seminary teacher. The common theme was you are doing the wrong thing, the military is bad, you will be a loser and you are messing up our ward track record of serving missionaries. I left after school let out and was under the impression that I genuinely was a bad person for not going on a mission. It is one thing when this comes from a couple random people, but when it comes from people in positions of authority in the church, well I believed it. Sad thing is I still see young men stigmatized for this to this day...I see it all the time. Too bad really. Most of them never come back.

Ok- re #1....I didnt imply anything esp reference the church. In fact in my entire response neither the church nor the word "church" was even written, much less anything reference anything anti...whatever. I wrote what I tell people who are LDS and Democrat. 2. I still didnt say anything nor even imply the church was anti gay. Feel free to pick apart what I said and respond, but dont make up anything about what I wrote. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts about what I did write / say. below is posted the response you are writing about. If you still insist I said or implied the church was anti-gay or the church was anti-democrat, please copy/past the text where I wrote that or even implied it and point it out to me. Very interesting you use this as an example. Many times I reference the OFFICIAL Democratic Party Platform to LDS democrats (specifically the abortion part) to see if they really truly want their vote to go to a Democrat who no matter what will always vote in favor of abortion rights....here is what the platform says: "Protecting A Woman's Right to Choose. The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman's decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs." https://www.democrat.../party-platform Anyway, I'm sure you already know (if you didnt, well here it is) that the demo party is completely and totally on-board with abortion. That being said, any contribution made to them goes either directly or indirectly to defending the right for a woman to kill her baby. Sending money to the BSA directly / indirectly facilitates the placement of openly gay adult males in positions of direct and prolonged influence over young males. Many defend it by saying, "oh well the church can control it here so no worries. It is those other people doing that." Well hello!, FOS money goes to fund the entire program....whether the youth being influenced by it are LDS or not is immaterial. It is still immoral.

Re # 2... Do you really believe that? re the campouts http://www.wwaytv3.com/2015/05/12/man-pleads-guilty-to-sex-offenses-during-camping-trip/ This was an 18 year old "man" who was the bad guy.

I agree on that issue, but the issue has never been about that,it has been about using it as a form of birth control... The platform does not even mention that part of it. Is says in part "...We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions." There it is...unintended pregnancies = need for abortions. If they gave the rationale you provided well then that is different. The only qualification the platform gives for the need for an abortion is an unintended pregnancy, not some risk of life to the mother or other contingency. While those are legitimate concerns, the primary concern is that abortion is not restricted as a birth control option. Anyway- wasnt wanting to hijack away from the scouting issue, just highlighting how even indirect support for a cause has a realized benefit to a cause we do not support. The problem with that IMHO is that if we KNOW what the money will eventually be used for then we are merely authorizing a proxy to commit the sin on our behalf. Maybe thats just me on drugs, but certainly seems to be the way things really are no matter how much we want to justify it.

1- where exactly did I say the church was anti-democrat??? Im looking everywhere and dont see it. 2- the LDS church supports homosexuality? Since when did that become an approved lifestyle for members of the LDS church?

Very interesting you use this as an example. Many times I reference the OFFICIAL Democratic Party Platform to LDS democrats (specifically the abortion part) to see if they really truly want their vote to go to a Democrat who no matter what will always vote in favor of abortion rights....here is what the platform says: "Protecting A Woman's Right to Choose. The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman's decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs." https://www.democrats.org/party-platform Anyway, I'm sure you already know (if you didnt, well here it is) that the demo party is completely and totally on-board with abortion. That being said, any contribution made to them goes either directly or indirectly to defending the right for a woman to kill her baby. Sending money to the BSA directly / indirectly facilitates the placement of openly gay adult males in positions of direct and prolonged influence over young males. Many defend it by saying, "oh well the church can control it here so no worries. It is those other people doing that." Well hello!, FOS money goes to fund the entire program....whether the youth being influenced by it are LDS or not is immaterial. It is still immoral.

#7 Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? How are we now going to answer this question if we participate in Scouts and/or donate money to FOS? Uh...how bout. "I dont agree with them, but my kid is in their program and I send them money." ? or... "No, I do not affiliate with the BSA or support them on the basis they practice allowing openly gay leaders to associate with and lead the youth which is contrary to the beliefs of our church. Although our church does not allow it within the scope of it's control, I still do not send them money as that only furthers their agenda which, again, is against the values of our church......or at least it used to be." and this is an honest question...I'm not being a bomb thrower like usual.

You would be correct and that is precisely why this is dangerous. We have a trend in my local area where it is very cool to be gay / lesbian and our LDS youth have not been immune to it.

I assume by demagoguery you mean I am playing on the unreasonable fears of some gay guy getting to know a boy a bit better than what is appropriate??? Just because he is gay? Please correct me if I am wrong.