Mike

Forgive me if you feel like my "boiling down" the essence of the OP is incorrect. I'm having difficulty agreeing that a dedication of more resources beyond what the church currently does would make a real dent. It's also interesting to me how obesity got so much thread press, which makes me wonder about pornography compared to all the others terrible things in the world that didn't make the thread as obesity did.

I suppose that as each of us remarks on the video and on our respective world-views we resemble the blind men describing the elephant based upon their isolated interactions with it. The video narrator said, "...the best research tells us that obedient children are happy children" but looking back, my personal experience leads me to believe that some qualifiers are in order--qualifiers such as obedience to truth vs obedience to arbitrary demands that had little connection to truth but instead merely to the convenience of the persons making the demands. I have been obedient at times to arbitrary demands and at other times to truth--and I don't feel like I was ever happy in my obedience to the former.

I don't have a problem with serious discussions on any topic. I'm pleased that most of the participants on this thread are making it a serious discussion. The good thing about serious discussions is that bad ideas are held up in the light with better arguments. And even bad ideas that are thought to be good can be examined and re-examined by honest opponents, and truth will out. I look forward to other commentators making equally serious counter-arguments, and if those arguments don't come from commentators I'm confident they'll come in any event.

As I began reading your last post the thought that popped into my mind was something like, "...yeah, sometimes "families are forever" is more like a threat than a promise." Then, I wondered if Cousin's feelings would be hurt if you didn't show, and I wondered whether Cousin would gracefully accept a phone call simply saying, "sorry I won't be able to make it this time, I look forward to next time". And as I read the end I thought, "huh, problem solved".

Hmmm, I'm interested in more information--are you saying you would want to be shunned? Tell me, did this person extend a personal invitation to you?

A golden rule moment? I would probably go, unless there is more that you think this reader should consider.

I know what you mean, and I agree that battlefield and historical sites are very different from sites where a statue may have been erected at the behest of a small group of people for other than historical values.

I'm thinking on the issue of the propriety of removing Confederate statues. I see a difference between a statue of General Lee on a battlefield at Gettysburg, for example, and a statue of him in a public square in Charlottesville. Lee, himself, was not in favor of such statues at all, or so I've read.

And [the moon's orbit wobbles] is an even simpler answer.

I am going to stay well away from the busy street in front of my work so that I won't get hit by drivers trying to look at the sky while they drive in the dark.

I see. I'm sorry to have done so.

I agree with you that President Obama erred in failing for example to call Islamic Extremism for what it is. Since President Trump does not make that particular mistake, don't you think it's more productive to call him out, since he *is* the current occupant, on failures in his own right at calling what is definitely without doubt home-grown terrorism for what it is?

The only one of the four that seems even remotely applicable in the context of this thread is number one, which is problematic to determine before the fact. And of course all items in the list are based upon experiences that made the justifications obvious. Without resort to legal counsel since you and I are not experts does it seem to you that a clear and present danger to others exists when participants such as those in Charlottesville are involved?

So you're saying that the unwanted outcome of Heather Heyer's murder was EXACTLY desired (by someone)?

What specific outcome are you referring to?

Then I think you and I stand together. I would only add at the moment that ther are foolish ways to call them out, and there are effective ways to call them out--and to defeat the growth of their ideas.

Then reconsider what you failed to discuss.: I'm currently of the opinion that had the neo-nazis' opponents chosen (or been compelled) to hold their own "rally" in a different location in order to freely express their counter-views, they would have robbed (in a good way) the new-nazis of the attention they actually sought. These kinds of attention-giving almost always result in unwanted consequences.

I confess that my post is somewhat vague. Wondering if you will consider any limitations on free speech?

I must admit that it is not sincere if by sincere you mean am I asking for information. I'm asking the question in order to highlight what seems to me to be the penchant of some of my co-members to interpret support in a way that would indict even our Savior.

I honestly feel that you are not paying attention to what I originally wrote because this isn't what I am talking about. What you just did was tantamount to telling me that my problem is that I don't see what you see, and if I would just put on your glasses my problem would be solved.

Is it acceptable for me to dine with a gay married couple and still hope to be "in good standing" with the Lord given my Temple covenants and all?

Not sure how literally I should take this given in particular how quick some are to bring up herrings like, oh, semantics, support, tacit approval, and good standing with the Lord. Do you think it's worthwhile to talk about how free (free speech) is acceptable in the context of this thread?

And this applies across the board--to everybody, right?

I'm of course aware of Martin Niemöller's quotation, "first they came for...", but I'm not clear on what you're saying here. Would you elaborate/clarify for me, please?

If you prefer to call your narrative an observation that's fine. I won't quibble over that insignificant difference. You're still ignoring the point I addressed. It appears you won't examine it with me (as I have already examined your observations regarding the U.S. Media on other occasions). And that's fine. We can leave it there.