JohnsonJones

I've only read the opening post, but my thoughts are that the Federal Government can enter temples, which would include ICE. One of the Fundementalist churches in Texas (LDS Fundamentalist) had a big blow up a few years ago (around...15 or 16 years?). They built a compound and a Temple in Texas and it was raided by government agents. Their Prophet and President (Warren Jeffs) got tossed in jail and a bunch of other stuff. They had a program on the News at that time where one of their Relief Society Presidency guided us through their lives and talked about their children. If the US government could raid that compound and their temple, I have no doubt they could raid an LDS Temple if they so wished. Hopefully with the correct warrants and other items in order, but I think if they wanted to, they could absolutely do a raid on one of our Temples. However...why would they want to? Whether or not you may find an Illegal immigrant in an LDS Temple is bad gamble. The chances are low at any one moment that you'd find an illegal immigrant there, and there are no really predictable schedules around it. It would be far easier to raid a meeting house of Spanish Speaking Wards or branches, use member rolls obtained using a warrants to see where they actually live and their contact information, or many other resources within the church to go after illegal immigrants which would be far easier than trying to go legally into an LDS Temple.

I mean, there's a reason why Utah is one of the few places a Con-man could make money off a pyramid scheme, and then write a useless book on how to be successful via successful habits, in order to be successful himself. When one of the key people praised in Utah had a plan to...make money via pryamid (excuse me...mlm, not pyramid) schemes and then make even bigger money it by telling people how to be successful in a book and then using that to sell seminars and do an entire business of it, something is seriously wrong. (the key being, this individual isn't successful before being that type of con artist, he made his money because other people thought he had the key to being successful. Turns out, being a Psychopath will be a better predictor of a successful High acting CEO than using his books or seminars). Utah was a prime breeding ground for this type of con-artist. Unfortunately, far more people and states fall for these types of schemes than not, and we probably should have more laws preventing this type of scamming.

That makes a Lot of Sense!!!! I have visited Texas many times (Last time being this past Spring during April/May for the eclipse). When in the areas near Northern San Antonio to Austin it struck me odd that in many of the Stores they had Latter-day Saint books and novels as well as other paraphernalia associated with the Church. I had only seen this in areas such as Utah, Northern Arizona and Eastern Idaho before this. It was like they had a high Latter-day Saint population there or something similar. That it was the home of an LDS colony long ago, and thus there may actually be a higher number of Saints in the area would explain that weird phenomena that I experienced there.

I open links in a new tab. (Don't ask how many tabs I have open at any one time. It's probably not pretty).

This is what I do when I'm looking for specific things on the Church's site.

GOOD sources...BUT... If I recall, none of those are primary. They are tertiary (meaning, not even secondary) writings given supposedly from someone else to the writer. That individual supposedly told the writer that Emma, or others told them such and such, and it was recorded as if they said it directly. It's one of the few beefs I have with the current history department of the Church. They show things as if they were from a primary source, but when you actually look at the source documents from which they originally (rather than being rewritten, etc) come from, they aren't primary sources. Some of the items are, but many of those which they are using to say certain things (which were used by the anti-mormons for decades) are actually from unreliable sources and papers (which is also the valid reason the Church was able to say these things were not true several decades ago and for a long while prior, and anti-mormons were not using reliable information). Which is probably why it makes it hard for many of my generation to accept a Lot of what the more recent items the Church has been changing in it's statements of history of the past decade. There are things the Church is now saying that you would have been excommunicated for a mere 35 years ago (Remember the September Six and Quinn. He was excommunicated specifically for several items which the Church now is using in it's church history narrative). Part of that problem is that they are now using sources that anti-mormons were using, which were shown not to be reliable (by historians not even connected to the Church! no less) in the first place. However, I've come to terms with it in my own way (see my above post on the actual topic) by understanding that in the end, what is truly important is revelation, and through that revelation, what the spirit and the Lord tells you is true.

Yes, there were supposedly several stones. Most of the statements we have of Joseph using a Seer Stone for translation are NOT primary accounts. I wish I knew where I got the information, but the sources I originally found the statements from were from newspaper reports. They were tertiary accounts which supposedly the individuals had told a reporter (decades after the fact...which would also be highly suspicious) and he had then written as an article. There were no primary accounts to back up his statements, and no primary accounts existed in that regard. That was one reason why the Church Historian for decades discredited these accounts (as he should have, tertiary accounts decades after the fact from a reporter that was shown to be hostile to group he was writing on is normally not considered a trustworthy or reliable source from any historian...and I cannot fathom why the church gives credit to some of these statements today). They were only used by Anti-Mormons. Today, they are portrayed as being primary sources and official statements, but most of them were not. In regards to the Whitmers, Joseph did spend time there, but he probably would not have witnessed the actual translation in person. Some of the accounts (if one trusts them) were supposed to have been stated at a highly volatile time. During this period, Joseph was deceased and the church was splintering. Some of those splinter groups also said they had a seer stone and were getting revelations from stones and rocks they possessed. Whitmer supported one such individual and from how he (if it is him) phrases things, it would appear the account was given to grant validity to the individual who was claiming church leadership at the time through revelation via stone. That said, it was not thought that Joseph did not get revelation through the Seer Stone, but that there were several ways translations occurred. One was more of revelation than translation (ala...Bible Translation...ala Pearl of Great Price...etc). These would have been done via using available sources and then, via the Seer Stone, getting inspiration of what was the true meaning. The Book of Mormon on the otherhand was given via a more direct translation, but whether via one of the Seer Stones or via the Urim and Thummim...does it really matter? It as divine in either case. That said, several prophets have gone on record to say that the Book of Mormon was translated via the Urim and Thummim. Most notably, the descendants of Hyrum Smith and those who came from the Smith Family. The difficulty some point out is that when the Gold Plates were initially taken from Joseph, the Urim and Thummim supposedly were taken as well...and though the plates were returned, some say that there is no indication that the interpreters were returned as well. If this were true, that leaves a gaping hole on how Joseph actually accomplished the translation of the rest of the Book of Mormon. I personally believe he translated it with the Urim and Thummim as I feel Hyrum's son, grandson, and others would not knowingly lie on this account. They were NOT there, but I feel they may have been told (or at least the son) when they were young how it was accomplished. That is a PERSONAL belief though. If we accept the Seer Stone idea, as I have a testimony of the Book of Mormon, it makes little difference to me. I can also understand the entire idea of using it and using a hat as well. There have been times when I needed to focus, and the best way to focus was to close out all other distractions. This could mean that I needed to have a dark spot (and in fact, using darkness and a bright beam of light to try to focus on a small part of an artifact is not unknown when trying to decipher something) in order to focus my energies on. Him using a hat during the day to exclude outward distractions, and focus on what was within the stone makes perfect sense to me as well. Furthermore, we know there were several Seer Stones (only one of which has been shown by the church, which is I think the Catseye) utilized. The white stone which I feel was the one utilized for translation and revelation has not been shown. There is also some thought that the white stone is actually the Urim and Thummim, and the Urim and Thummim may only mean one stone rather than the two we imagine it to be. Once again, what the truth turns out to be means little if you have a testimony of the Book of Mormon. It is an interesting side note to try to understand, but the more important thing, that the Book of Mormon came to use through the Power of the Lord and is his word is what is the most important thing for us to know through the Holy Ghost, and to have revealed to us by the Lord. PS: In theory, we've had 2 of the seer stones shown to us. We've had the Cat's Eye from our recent Prophet, and the Bidaman stone from the RLDS group (or, more specificially, Emma Smith). I personally don't think the white stone was the interpreters (though, they could have been), I think they were something else (two stones set and bridged together). Supposedly Joseph showed people something all through his life that were the Urim and Thummim. Also, if one can actually find the links (not sure if they to be found on the internet or not) that show that many of the accounts for the Seer Stone translation idea are actually from a reporter who wrote (or recorded these stories supposedly) and thus an unreliable secondary (or tertiary) account, I'd appreciate it.

It's unclear to me. The first thought I had is something that would be highly unpopular among Elon Musk worshippers in the forum. However, from the same people that I've talked to (who have worked with him somewhat), I would say that Elon acts extremely autistic sometimes. This means that he may not be all to sharp in his personal skills and his relations with others. It could truly be that he meant what he said and was trying to show it (in a way an autistic individual may think is appropriate in public, but most would see it as inappropriate). It appears he is doing it from a very heartfelt manner, and he does appear to be trying to grab his heart and show it is out to everyone out there. On the otherhand... Is he really that out of touch? The timing, the mannerism, and how he did it is exactly the same way that some clips of Hitler show him doing it. That's awfully suspicious. Furthermore, with his recent comments regarding German Politics and it's linking to the Neo Nazi movements there...it's particularly poor timing and many would see this as confirmation that he actually is supporting those who are supremacists there...and obviously now in the US. Regardless of what the reason was, it is now seen as being done in extremely poor tastes. This shouldn't be something discussed on the first day of a Presidency when so much more is going on (for example, Trump just signed the EO to do away with Birthright Citizenship. Protecting the meaning and value of American Citizenship This should turn interesting very quickly. 22 states have already filed a lawsuit about this. Many other things are afoot in the government.

I think I beat them all to this idea several months ago, before the election took place. It's about when I said it was highly possible Trump would win. I also added that he was at least an Anti-Christ if not the Anti-Christ (there are many Anti-Christ, one does not have to be THE Anti-Christ to be Anti-Christ. That said, he's probably the closest candidate we have currently for the position of THE Anti-Christ. There's actually a clause that says one does not have to swear on the Bible. Article VI section 3 (or clause, if you will).

The Dialogue of the Church has changed over the years... Indications are that Joseph Smith was sealed to quite a number of women (though whether they actually were acted upon in how we see marriage is what is debatable). We have no evidence that Joseph actually ever slept with other women (we know he was fertile, and as such, if he did consummate as many marriages as were recorded, there should be children and that means DNA evidence of such relations and relationships. There is none that I know of). The idea that Joseph had acted upon these relationships, rather than they were ceremonial (well, more than that, they were actual sealings) comes from the time of Brigham Young. One of the more famous cases at the time dealt with a messy divorce in which Brigham Young somehow dredged up a bunch of woman who claimed to have lived with Joseph in the same way wives lived with Brigham Young. At a later date it was shown that most of this, if they had investigated it properly with more modern ideas, would not be admissible. Some of these witnesses were basically making things up whole clothe. This has been a source of contention for over a century now. The Anti-Mormons leapt on these things to try to use the testimony to prove Joseph was an active polygamist doing certain acts. The Church at the time pointed out how these witnesses were unreliable and because of this there was no actual evidence of Joseph having physical relationships outside his marriage to Emma (a point no longer pursued by the Church today). It made some things that Young stated, from a Historical perspective (rather than a faith based, religious one), prone to more analysis and investigation as in some instances what he said was not able to be verified as historically accurate. In that same line, a story started that he either wrote, or discovered, section 132. Many Anti-Mormons using the debunked testimony of the witnesses used it as further proof that section 132 had been forged by Brigham Young. Officially, that has never been what the Church taught. The Church has taught that section 132 was divine revelation, and that it was enacted by the Prophet at the time. The method in which it was enacted has been debated and changed in it's form over the decades, but section 132 was always seen as coming from Joseph Smith and as divine revelation. This is one item that has never changed that I recall, at least from the time I joined the Church to today.

So, many years after the Death of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young was on trial in regards to one of his plural wives and a messy divorce. In it, he was trying to prove that polygamy was something practiced by Joseph Smith and that it was a matter of actual husband and wife practices that were done together (rather than just a ceremonial thing). This testimony was used by anti-Mormons for years to show that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, while the church itself was mostly silent on the matter. Today, these testimonies are used to show that Joseph Smith was also a polygamist by the Church itself. The problem...these testimonies are not historically reliable. It was shown that some of these woman that testified that they lived with Joseph as husband and wife would do...could Not have possibly done so due to various factors (such as not being in the same nation at the time, or not being anywhere close to where Joseph was, or not even being members...etc). It throws doubt upon the entire matter of whether they should even be considered relevant or just a matter of fiction utilized in court as a way to try to bolster a legal argument at the time, but which had no basis in history or even reality. Part of this and why it was possible was that these witnesses of these events were talking about things 30 years in the past. Memory is a funny thing, and even those that were trying to be truthful may have had their ideas and opinions colored by time and life. Ironically, in the past, with Church historians, unless one was a primary source (they were actually there and participated in the event, and it can be shown or proven they were there), testimonies and witnesses of things that were stated 30-40 years after something happened (but had never been mentioned by the individual prior to that point, being of so little importance they never even thought to mention it) were considered unreliable witnesses. Anti-mormons used these all the time, but as many of these people could be shown to never have even participated or been around the events they testified of, it was all considered unreliable. Now days, for some reason, the church accepts all these types of witnesses and testimonies. Some of the more notorious items of these (for example, Joseph's handling of plates and such, his way of translation...etc) were not even from primary witnesses, but from a man who claimed they told him these things who then relayed it to a reporter in a Newspaper almost 50 or more years After the events even transpired (second hand source, decades afterwards, from a man who didn't appear to have a solid connection to any of those he said told him these things...that's definitely not a really reliable source for a historian) I'm not saying this happened in this instance, but as the event you are talking about happened decades after it occurred, it appears to follow a similar trend of other statements and testimonies of things Brigham Young had others certify that Joseph did or approved. I will (as I said above) say that the things you are saying were also taught to me when I was joining the church, so it was considered doctrine, but as a historian I would also say that the source you are using in Coltrin may not be the most solid evidence.

They are also using them to spray farms in the US. I was talking to someone who was a crop duster and they were talking about how it's becoming a bad time to get into the profession unless you want to do the drone thing.

Ironically, I think it started with Iger, who is more liberal than the prior CEO, but also more practical. The last CEO, Chapek, was conservative, but seemed to approve almost any woke idea that Disney had for some reason. Perhaps it was to show that he was not too conservative to lead the company or something (I have no idea), and that led to some rather bad situations (Lightyear pushback, Strange Worlds scene that got protesting, etc) for Disney media. Iger isn't against suggestive ideas on screen, but I think some of the more blatant ones that infuriate their core audience (conservative families) are things he generally tries to have Disney avoid.

Today, in the Western World, I see a LOT of people practicing Idolatry, who do not even realize they are practicing it. It is especially prevalent in Politics. People will castigate anyone who is part of another party, or who isn't part of their political theology as sinners (which is ridiculous. The Lord wasn't a Conservative, and he definitely wasn't a Democrat, so trying to accuse each of being a sinner due to political ideologies rather than letting the Lord be the judge is rather...well...). However, we see wickedness abounding all around us. In the recent election with much of the political turmoil I was greatly bothered. We have been taught not to support evil or wicked leaders, and yet, we had many doing just that and being very proud of it. Ironically, many called those who did not support wickedness...as sinners. Praying about it brought great comfort as I was led to understand that it all was to bring about the Lord's purposes. I understood that men would worship anti-christs and those who stood against the Lord, with even the elect being deceived. I was also given the hope that I would hear from the Lord before the next decade was out. I don't know what that could mean, it could mean that the second coming is right around the corner and that the events and individuals prophesied will come in very short order (in which case, the Anti-Christ is probably currently either in power or coming to power very soon, and it will be obvious to those who look back that those who were considered the very elect of the Lord were even deceived and worshipping this anti-christ as a leader...or worse...as the Lord's chosen servant). It could also mean that I'm going to be dead in short order as well (not unbelievable, as I have gotten up there in years comparatively to many others). Joseph Smith had a similar thing told about himself, and it wasn't that the second coming was going to occur in the next century, but he certainly got to see the Lord's face before the turn of the century occurred. It could also mean something else. However, whatever it means, it means that I am worrying too much about the world and not enough about myself. I should take comfort that the Lord's purposes are progressing and know that as long as I stay true to the Lord and his gospel, all will be well. I had great conflict with the new prophet's approach to things originally, but with great prayer and faith I've turned into a solid believer in President Nelson's divine calling. I truly believe we should follow the prophet, but I see that there are many in the Church that will turn on him and other apostles if the political spectrum of belief they have is offended (aka...they worship their political leaning more than they worship the Lord or follow his servants advice). This has also caused some conflict in my life. As I've seen some of this become more manifest, not just with members, but in my own family, I've turned to the Lord for guidance on how to deal with these things. I haven't gotten all the answers to these questions, except, that once again, to be comforted and to stay true to my covenants. That all will be well, and that as long as I strive to be faithful, I will have joy in this life and in heaven. A lot of it depends on my own faithfulness. It can be a struggle at times as I am a very imperfect being. I have myriads of sins that I try to overcome every day. The temptations of the world are all around us. I am too possessive of worldly things (such as my books, which is a great downfall of mine, but I am at least aware of my failing), and do not love my fellowman enough. When asked, I will give a dollar or two to the beggar, but in reality, I should be far more charitable and give $5 or $20 to those who ask of it. When asked to donate to charitable causes I need to be far more giving. I am weak in my own wariness of my financial future (of which, little may be left anyways, as I mentioned above, I could very well be dead in a few years). The story in the New Testament of the rich man who died...tells that we don't really know when we will die and any possessions we have now are absolutely useless to us...including any money we have saved up. Most of what I've gotten has been comfort I suppose, in the face of an overwhelmingly wicked world which is only getting more wicked. Immorality abounds. I am demoralized when I hear that 95% of young people today participate in immoral actions before they are married. I worry about my descendants and as I know some have problems regarding the church wonder if they too have fallen in with the worldly practices in that regards. I worry that I am not strong enough and that I was too weak to teach them properly. I know I tried my best, but I still seem to have failed in some ways. Once again, it's only with faith in the Lord that I can find hope in this matter. I see a world where evil is called good and good is called evil today. It's not just whether one is conservative or Liberal, both sides are heavily involved with this, even as it's not even really a political ideology. Even turning on the TV, even if you try to only watch good shows, you have commercials which are filled with sin and wickedness. Saints even do not seem to notice how fallen much of this is. Things that would have made us blush in the 60s are commonplace in Ads and commercials, even when you try to stick to shows that would only be uplifting. It's very demoralizing and it's hard to stay positive when you see such things in abundance in the world around. So, a lot of this is basically me explaining my weaknesses. I think the greatest thing thus far (and in the future it may be far more) that I can recognize is the Lord giving me comfort and hope in the light of all this. That I can get reassurances of the Lord's love and help in strengthening my resolve to try to follow the Lord, even in the wake of so much that can demoralize me. It may not seem like a lot compared to what some may experience, but for me, to a degree, it is a small miracle.

I think Russia should be careful about ordering Chinese ships from dragging anchors around cables from now on. This is probably a pretty clear message to them about ramifications if they go too far in doing certain things.

Just as an aside, I joined the church before the ban was done away with. When I was taught, the ban was taught, basically, just like Maverick is talking about. It was taught right alongside the idea that we were sealed for time and all eternity in the temple, that we had the ability to be sealed to our spouse, and that the priesthood authority was found in the Church. It was considered as strong a doctrine and as revelation as that of Joseph Smith receiving the Aaronic Preisthood, and the fact that we had the Melchizedek Priesthood. If what was taught as doctrine is not considered doctrine now, what about everything else that was taught as doctrine alongside it. Are those things which were taught in conjunction with it no longer doctrine also? (I obviously would say they would not be, but some of these items are just as nebulous as the racial doctrine taught, and some of them are not actually found so distinctly spelled out in the scriptures as we may think they are. In fact, the ideas Maverick has talked about are actually more clear than some of the things we think are taught in the scriptures. One prime example is that families are sealed together forever, where does it say that we an take a child and seal it to their parents in such an explicit manner so that it is unmistakably done in how we perform it as quoted by the scriptures?) The reasons were also taught as Maverick has presented them. It was not some nebulous, unknown. It was not some strange, or crazy thing that we had no idea what the reasons for. If one wants to know what was taught, if one can find a copy of Mormon Doctrine, McConkie probably simply just recites what was already common knowledge at the time of it's writing. For interest, instead of quoting the 1966 version, I'll use the 1978 version (which should be obvious the reason if one understands what occurred during that year). This is not to say that McConkie was correct, as he was not writing this as a prophet at the time, however, his writing in this shows the common teaching (in otherwords, this wasn't McConkie who made this up, or came up with this. These were things that appeared to be officially approved by the First Presidency in the teachings we got in Church Wardhouses at the time). Many try to point fingers at McConkie and use him as a scapegoat, and while this idea may hold true for a few items, in many of the things he wrote or commented on, he simply was gathering what was already commonly taught or given to us at the time as church doctrine. And I will say, it was taught as Doctrine. Not policy, not opinion...doctrine. It has become a great difficulty (and stumbling block) for some in our modern time, because if we discard what has been taught as being doctrine and revelation, and then simply say it was not so (I think people call this gaslighting), it calls into question what exactly is doctrine to us (though, I hold that it is what we find in the Standard Works, everything else is debatable, but the Standard Works is what we have as our doctrine that is the same and unchangeable)? It should be noted, the Essays are Not taught to be doctrine. They are Not taught to even be policy. They are written to help educate and illuminate our own knowledge. I'm not going to take a side in this argument (some may say I have by stating what I have in this post, but this is something I just wanted noted by those trying to equate the essays as the doctrine of the Church, in comparison to what actually Was taught as doctrine in the past, even though today it is quite different then it was previously). So, what, ultimately do I want to point out by posting this. It doesn't matter what was taught in the past, or what we think was taught in the past. The past has things that were pertinent for that time period. The Israelites had particular laws that were set forth that they were to obey. These laws had things that pertained to what they could eat (no shellfish for example...and I love Lobster), things they could wear (no mixed cloth type garments for example), and how they were to conduct themselves (an eye for an eye as an example). This was doctrine for their day. We no longer follow that doctrine because we have been given other doctrine that pertains to us. Elder Cook stated in his April 2020 Conference message some of the following (and you can find the full talk here, and it's is a great talk to read) The Blessing of Continuing Revelation Furthermore, what may be seen as a way of presenting a doctrine, may have been a policy as such. What we see as doctrine, may have only been the means and the means was a policy. Russel M. Nelson explained this in a speech he gave to BYU students a few years back when explaining changes in regards to the children of LGBT families and parents. To the outsider it may have seemed as a change to doctrine, but in reality it was merely a change in policy, while the doctrine behind the ideas were done by the brethren. Love and the Laws of God This of course is a much more recent change in the Conversations of the Church than the Blacks and the Priesthood. Finally, the Prophet talked several years ago about his revelation and our need for revelation in his April 2018 talk, Revelation for the Church, Revelation for our Lives And from the same talk, far more important, and probably pertinent to this conversation and to any time when we have questions of the gospel and doctrine. It does not mean we receive revelation for the entirety of the church or for overall doctrine, but it means that we can receive the necessary revelation for our own spirits and families in order to have what we need in order to survive spiritually in these turbulent times, and at the end of the day...that's what is really important.

I think you missed the point of the post, and didn't actually read what it said...but 🤷‍♂️ PS: The reason I copy and paste is it's always good to show sources so people know it's not just something one makes up on their own. It's even better when the source is a more neutral source that has facts so that people can't just counter and say it's an opinion or something one made up. A source also provides the information so others can go and interpret it as they want, or discuss the information with a basis of where another's ideas or thoughts may be coming from, and if they interpret it differently, can also use their own sources or point out the information from the source they feel backs up their ideas. It's like when we talk about the teachings of the Lord. It's great to express our opinions and beliefs. It can be stronger when we post the actual scriptures behind it supporting those beliefs for some people.

To a degree. To clarify, Nazi's in germany were Facists. General Wikipedia article on it at it's start wikipedia entry on Nazism Merriam-Webster on the differences between Facism and Socialism Merriam-Webster Difference between Facism and Socialism The Nazi's did have some socialistic items they used (in regards to industry and other areas), but in views and other areas, were more authoritarian and what one would consider Capitalistic as well, at least in a regard that they were more inline with Corporatism (as the US is becoming as we see large corporations gain more power and wealth which actually hinders a more true form [as I would see it] of capitalism from progressing). However, to claim Nazi's were champions of the Left or would be today, I think may not be portraying them exactly in the right light (haha...see what I did there?). They were also extremely far right in some areas as well (such as hierarchical positions of society and enforced views on races and discriminational activities [for example, one of the more notorious is their treatment of the Jewish people, along with others they considered undesirables).

So it appears Trump will be going ahead with his idea to get rid of illegal (and in some instances, legal) immigrants. I heard an interesting segment on how he will attempt to get rid of birthright citizenship. It will probably end up in the courts. His thrust will be if you are not born to a citizen or permanent resident, you will not be a citizen of the United States. If successful, this would mean that illegal immigrants who have children in the US would no longer have those children as anchor babies, those children would not be US citizens. In addition, he has said that he will not separate families, so that even if one is a legal citizen, if they have family members that are illegal citizens that are getting kicked out of the US, he would transport the entire family out of the US (or detained at a camp). There are some that say this would affect Trumps children...it will not. Trump is a US citizen, and therefore, all his children would also be US citizens. Even if they had a mother who was not, since Trump is a US citizen, anyone claiming that his children would not be US citizens under these new ideas are hallucinating. On the otherhand, it will be interesting if he extends the rules to apply towards his wife, or others who are allies of his, but were not born to citizens or permanent residents at the time of their birth. If he kicks Melania out of the country, I'd say anyone and everyone who isn't born to parents who were citizens (and their parents were citizens as well) may want to start worrying...a LOT. That said, I expect that as soon as he tries to enact these ideas, someone is going to try to challenge them in court. Even with the court being so conservative, I find it hard to think that they would support Trump in these ideas, but we will see.

It doesn't bother me if he's a drinker or not. It was decades ago, but there were a ton of officers which were extremely heavy drinkers. Anytime we got, I also so a ton of enlisted who were heavy drinkers. Drinking in the military is pretty common I think. It shouldn't surprise anyone if someone who was or is in the military drinks, or even drinks heavily. I'm probably more focused on the fact that he actually served and did his time (I'm probably very pro-veteran, so I'm probably also biased in that manner). Same reason why there are some things I'll defend Vance against as well.

They are probably charging (currently) what they feel they can win in court. They probably feel it should be a slam dunk to win the case in court with a second degree murder charge. There needs to be a lot more evidence to charge for first degree murder. This is a very new case, so they probably only have surface evidence so far. They are probably still conducting their investigation (and probably will continue for a few weeks). If and when they feel they have enough evidence to charge for first degree murder, they will elevate the charge. However, until they gain enough evidence that they feel they can win the case in court, they probably will not bring that charge up. It takes time to develop a case, especially for first degree murder.

The irony I've actually been seeing, especially prior to his capture, was that overwhelmingly the younger conservatives I see in classes and such were in support of what the shooter did. It appears that many college students, especially conservative ones, have some pretty hefty concerns regarding healthcare...which also includes healthcare companies (and what some of them would term...death panels). I have no idea what the percentage is, but it is extremely high among the younger ones. The older conservatives...I was talking to one of my compatriots and they didn't even know what I was talking about. Another one didn't know much about it either, except that the news had mentioned it and that it was just another one of those New York crimes (you know, New York has a lot of crime, at least that's what she told me). I would say, overall, the younger folks are following it a lot closer than us older folks. They also seem to be more in a like minded way of seeing it (regardless of whether they are conservative or liberal).

I'm not sure I followed the entire conversation correctly, but if I understand right, you, as a Veteran have the ability to have a type of universal healthcare. The VA (at least until Trump guts it) currently has healthcare for Veterans who desire it. It's been awhile since I've gone to one (so, I'm not sure of all the protocols and costs, I have health insurance through work which covers 80% of costs...used to cover 100% until Obamacare destroyed the platinum plans...which I disliked tremendously), but I think it charges something around $25 per visit or per subscription or something to that effect for Veterans. I also hear that it will cover 100% of in-service injuries if one qualifies for them (I've heard it's a pain to try to do so). The sad thing about the VA is that how good your healthcare (from what I've seen) is directly proportional to how well they are funded. A well funded VA that has a decent money/doctor to Veteran ratio actually appears to have equal or superior healthcare to many healthcare industries around them. They also tend to have good connections to the community in case they need to do referrals. The same can also apply to Tri-care for those who have it. (Since this is a Church board, I hear that the one in Salt Lake City is actually pretty good of a VA center) On the otherhand, when it has a bad funds/Doctor to Veteran Ratio (I've heard some bad things about Oakland over the years, though perhaps it's improved), medical care tends to go down. In these instances, it can be far inferior to other forms of healthcare in the surrounding area. This should make obvious sense as to why, but it seems to elude various directors and government officials. Money invested and good Doctor to patient ratios make for better healthcare. Less money and bad Doctor to Patient ratio makes the quality of healthcare go down. There are several problems with the US healthcare system today. I know that my German relatives can see a Doctor very quickly, and for serious surgeries and operations they actually get in quicker to them than the average US citizen does. German healthcare (socialized...oooo...loook...there's a scary word for some Americans) actually does better than the US in many categories. There are several facets of this though. Part of the problem I see is that the Medical profession protects their paychecks. What I mean by this is that they keep the number of Doctors down on purpose (there are many ways they could increase the number of Doctors in the US, and educating them to have a greater number...but that would also decrease the amount of pay since supply and demand is always prevalent in a capitalistic society). However, that is actually small change to other factors which boosts costs even more, such as unreliable billing from Hospitals (and that isn't what the Hosptal bills, it's what the Hospital can reliable get...for example, they don't have guarantees that a patient will pay as care is billed afterwards. Due to this insecurity, they massively overcharge those that they can in order to make up the differences, as there are many that will not pay the bill afterwards). Other parts are that hospitals will pay for medical items and medications, but are being price gouged by pharmaceutical companies and medical equipment companies...so that when a basic piece of medical equipment that costs 10K to make, but the hospital has to pay 2 million to buy...well...guess how they are going to pay for that (actually, it's no secret, they pass it on to those that will pay the bills). There's a lot of rotteness in the medical system today, a lot of corruption, and a lot of wickedness and evil men (and women). However, that applies to many companies out there. The question is how much government reach do we want to allow to bring the medical industry to heel? Do we want the government to be allowed to dictate who our doctor is (and with the VA system, you are told who your primary care physician is, and it is only they who can refer you to other treatments, the same applies to those in the military and their military medical care. With Tri-care, you can have something similar as a retiree, though if you get Tricare standard (I think that's what it is) you do get a choice of your doctor, but then Tricare Standard only covers 80% of the costs) Right now I get to select a doctor and if I do not like the doctor, I can choose another doctor. If we went to single payer healthcare, I'm sure the costs associated with our medical care would go down, we probably would have a better care for those who don't have money or are poor, but our freedom of choice would go down as well, and the ability for those who do have money to get the best care would also be reduced as the healthcare would be spread out in a more general fashion (which probably would improve health in general nationally, only certain specific individuals would have healthcare go down). There are pros and cons to each type of situation.

So I just got a Barnes and Nobles Nook (Glowlight Plus 4) and I found out that I can load books onto it via my PC. I also had known that the church had ebook versions of the scriptures, Saints, and a few others on their site. I don't know where to find these things. I'll have my son in law coming for Christmas who is pretty tech saavy and on the know, but I'd really like to be able to download and then put these books on the Nook before then. Does anyone know where to find them (or who can put a link up to it?). PS: I found out by accident that LDS.com does NOT link up to the Church site, but to some other design solutions site instead. Wonder why the Church let that one go.

That would have to be some specially selective apocalypse.