JohnsonJones

The most violent Left I hear about are the gangs, and supposedly there are enough gang members throughout the US that they actually outnumber the US military, which means they also outnumber the amount of Police. Gangs are supposedly a major problem in the US (and have been since at least the 60s), have guns, and do a LOT of crime. I know Salt Lake City is actually considered one of the safer cities in the nation and has far less crime and criminal activity than most, but even there I would think the Law Officers would recognize that could be a serious problem if all those people ever got organized and angry.

I'll hope or guess for a Temple in Charleston, West Virginia. I'm still trying to adapt from different meetings at different times of the day and week, to transitioning to 3 hour church! 2 hour church is still confusing me on where to go on which Sunday! And now people are wanting 1 hour church?!

That's interesting. When I was younger, you could go to any store and they would have a rack of comic books. I don't think I've seen a rack of comic books in any store for...oh, it has to be over a decade if not longer now. I know that they started to get far more adult in themes and such during the time when my children were growing up. By the turn of the millenium they were having such topics in them that I wouldn't want my children to read some of them. Comic books forgot who they were for, and focused instead on adults. If they have lost audiences and that's why I no longer see them in stores, I would say that some of it is because they forgot who they were. Instead of being written in a way which was appropriate for everyone to read, they wrote them focused on adults with adult material in mind instead. That is what I would think, if they continued that trend that I had observed many years ago. Today, they'd just be filled with smut. Comic books from the 50s and 60s were a lot cleaner (or maybe it was my perception as a boy, but I could swear they were a lot cleaner than they became in the late 20th century). Part of it is that "Christians" do not act like Christians anymore. Just a few to comment on. How many are meek these days. Instead of being meek I see Christians (and even members) who are boisterous, loud, and imposing their ideas and views on others. Who are the peacemakers today? Who here supports invading other nations, or taking over places that are not theirs. Who supports Russia in their invasion of another nation and taking their land? Who supports the idea that the US should invade other nations? That doesn't seem very peacmaker like to me. Who is doing the persecuting today? Who is trying to tell others who to live their lives, what they can do, what they cannot do. Rather than being in society, but not part of society, the current "Christians" seem to want to dictate what others can or cannot do, to force others to live their lives as the "Christians" feel it should be. How many of us feed the poor, give shelter to those in need of it, visit those in jail and prison, help the sick and the weak, and go the extra mile and turn the other cheek these days. Christians are not seeing as doing these things most of the time, and in fact, seem to be doing the opposite. If Christians were more as the Lord would have us do, if they would truly be followers of Christ, I think the youth would not be having such problems with Christianity today. However, when they see a majority of Christians supporting sinful leaders, supporting ideals that go against the Bible, they start to question why they should believe anything else Christians say they believe, if the actions of Christians do not support it. This is probably one of the biggest complaints I hear from many young people on why they do not like religion (so, it's not just Christianity) today. It's not that they don't feel there are good teachings and principals found there, but that those who say they follow those teachings, do not actually follow them and in many instances do the opposite.

They said that during the American Revolution... They didn't die off that quickly. In fact, I think their ideas and relatives are still around today in a nation called the Good Ol USA. They said that during the French Revolution. They didn't seem to die off that quickly either, though many DID die. They had a more troubled start, but those they rebelled against DID die, and the descendants of those who rebelled are some of those still in power today. These are where those terms and ideas come from (US and French Revolutions). There were those that felt the same way (that the revolutions would be quickly quashed and those supporting them would either die, surrender, or disappear). I don't think they won that fight. I hope that the US and the world isn't quickly approaching that point, but saying that when people get that angry that they will die off extremely quickly is not what I would say is the wisest course of thought to take. Perhaps more of bolstering communities to survive such things if you think it's on the horizon and preparing yourself and your family to weather the storm, whichever way it blows, would be a better approach.

Hard question to answer, to be honest. I'm not sure if this is what Trump has in mind or not, it could be that he's off his rocker, it could be he's nostalgic, it could be that he's caught up in the past where tariffs were desired, or if what. HOWEVER... The US has lost it's ability to survive on it's own manufacturing as it's become globally intertwined. A lot of the moves Trump seems to be trying to make (including trying to seize Canada or Greenland) are in the interest of a nation which can defend itself without the need to be reliant on others. Part of that is to have the ability to manufacture tanks, airplanes, and everything else we need without using foreign manufacturers. Right now, almost everything we have in the military has something in it that is made in another nation, and if that nation refuses to give it to us...well...that's going to either take some time to replace or we simply lose the ability to use that piece of equipment. China still has the ability to make their own military equipment if they need to. Russia has the ability, even with severe sanctions. The problem is that many in the US do not feel the US could do that if we had to. In addition, it seems he is taking Global Warming seriously (ironic, most of his base probably does not take it seriously). According to those predictions, Canada and Greenland will become far more important defensive zones as shipping and other transportation becomes easier over a melted arctic (or one that is melted year round, enabling a constant shipping lane). The distances between Greenland, Canada, and the other portion of the world across the arctic is closer than going the long way round. There are Two enemies in particular that would be interested in approaching us via that way. One is Russia (whom many feel Trump is an agent of...though...interestingly enough it could be that he sees this threat from Russia and that is the real reason he is so zealous about securing these areas). So, I can see if this was his aim (remember, my original statement was it may not be what he is thinking, but this is a possibility), these are the exact things he would be trying to accomplish. The problem comes in how to accomplish this. If you have to force manufacturing back to the US to become that self sufficient, it's going to require some heavy lifting, and will cause severe repercussions. These Tariffs may not be strong enough yet to actually force that to happen. It may be that Tariffs have to get a lot worse in order to do that. You may have to take Canada and Greenland by force. And this is where the problems come in. With the Tariffs, manufacturing will not return to the US overnight. In fact, my current estimations (and my estimations are probably far too conservative, timewise, this is a base that we've lost over a matter of 75 years!) is that it will take at least a generation (or somewhere around 20 years) to get to that point. I don't think Americans will have the patience for that. In fact, I think they may be wanting to revolt against these things in less than 3 months. That's bad news. In that light, I think Tariffs are a bad idea that will only backfire for Trump and cause a lot of anger and angst against him, even from those that support him. If I were advising him I'd say this could be political suicide for the party if he keeps up this track. On Greenland and Canada, the idea is that they don't have the population to defend against a dedicated invasion against Russia or China. However, they have traditionally been some of the US's closest allies over the past 50 years. Threatening them and wanting to take them over makes them hostile to us, and that is Not a good thing. That will only give possibilities for them to be endeared to our enemies later. We should instead negotiate for a way for us to build up our own bases in greater number as time passes and seas melt, in order to bolster our allies up while also helping ourselves. I think, if Trump is doing this with these ideas in mind, I can see the logic behind some of them. I don't Agree with the moves, but I could understand the logic. In fact, I'd say I oppose the moves. But, if one really wants to get manufacturing back to the US, I see that one very strong way to do it is with Tariffs. Helping people understand this will be hard. Getting it done will be harder. It's going to take longer than Trump will probably be alive, and he will be categorized as a villain by many people for doing it. The Republicans will be villainized for doing it. I don't like it. It's going to be financially painful for a lot of people. I don't think this is the right path, but if you really want manufacturing back in the US to the degree it was in WW2, it's going to take very painful things in order to accomplish that.

I actually have a story of protection, but of one of my relatives rather than of myself. My Future Son-in-Law was serving a mission many years ago. At one point they were going downhill on bicycles on a gravel road. They were racing and as young men do, were not being the most careful. He passed several cars going downhill and so was going at a relatively good clip. As he took a sharp corner, the bike finally had enough and it couldn't keep it's stabilization on the gravel. He hit the ground extremely hard, and then the rest of his body followed. He injured and arm and a leg quite severely and still has the scars from it as well to this day. However, interestingly enough, he didn't fall on his arms or legs first, he fell on his shoulder. His shirt was torn entirely at that point, but he was uninjured at any spot where his garments were, and they were not destroyed or torn. He credits that the protection of the Lord was there to help him due to his faithful keeping of the covenant to wear the garment, and wherever the garment was, he was uninjured (which, unfortunately did not extend to his arms and legs).

In the United States we are blessed in the past (and hopefully today as well) with an FDA and other government agencies that regulate our food. You do not realize how much of a blessing that actually is. I have traveled quite a bit out of the US. There are places where you can literally die from eating the local cuisine if you are not cautious or careful. You can get extremely ill. There are places where you will get extremely sick or die from drinking the water. Prayers over food and drink are extremely important. It isn't just a prayer that will protect you, but also that the spirit will help guide you in what you can or cannot eat or drink, what you should or should not eat or drink. I can recall once when I was younger (decades ago, in my late 30s I think) when I was visiting over in Northern Africa and Southern Europe. At the time I was with some peers and the peer pressure at a meal to not say a prayer over it was heeded. I got food poisoning. It was the worst food poisoning I've ever had. It was to the point that I had to be hospitalized. An experience like that is a good wake up call on why to ask the Lord for protection, why to ask the Lord to bless your food and help you make wise choices in regards to your food, and also to be extremely thankful for when the Lord blesses you with food that is good and nourishing. We are also blessed when we do what we can to ensure we make good choices. Then, after we have done all we can, we can turn to the Lord to take up the slack. There are times when one probably has food that may not be the best, but if they've tried to ensure they eat good food, then the Lord may (as he wills it) ensure that we are getting the nutrients and vitamins we need to remain healthy. I've seen members who only ate junk food who had excellent health. A part of that may be that the Lord truly is blessing their food to provide what they need, or what their body needs according to their faith in him. I do not have all the answers, but I think asking the Lord to bless the food is a good idea, at least in my personal life.

So, looking over the Come Follow Me for next week I had a thought (probably very heavily inspired by the Come Follow Me Lesson). I absolutely love my books. I have what some would consider a rather large library. It consist of over 10,000 books. It is perhaps one of my most treasured things. It is worthless. I dream that when I die, I will be given a large room of books to spend eternity with, but that's as vain a thought as the Pharoahs who tried to bring their treasures with them. It can be a hard thing to put the lord above all other things, including things that you love in this life. Part of putting the Lord first for me, I think it to realize that it's truly just the Lord and what he wants that is important. If it is needful for me to read in the next life, it will be because it's part of the Lord's plan for me, not because of my own selfish desires to simply sit back and read for eternity. I think when I read about Martin Harris's sacrifice, that it could not have been easy for him to do. He ended up losing a lot of property and money. According to this site inflation calculator He would have lost over 100,000 ($101,134.02 as calculated to the end of 2024) in today's spending money. How much are we willing to give for the Kingdom of the Lord. We should be willing to sacrifice all we have (which, in truth, as this life is a temporary probation, is actually nothing at all since we don't get to keep any of it anyways). It's getting into that mindset that can be hard though.

Personal experience working in conjunction with the system, along with a lot of other information regarding what some people would consider paper law. Not something I tend to discuss on this forum. I focus more on the historical side of things, especially as I am now teaching (and hopefully retiring at the end of the semester finally, though there has arisen a complication with that). If you are truly interested you can Message me privately, but any discussions in this regard are strictly private.

So, currently I am working with Activity Day kids and working as a Font Coordinator. The last time I actually Baptized someone was around 2 years ago, it was one of my grand children. This weeks Come Follow Me has me thinking about converting others and baptizing. One of my friends, we'll call him Rod, has been very active with the missionaries and with his friends. I've seen him three times over the past two years. He has baptized several of his friends into the church. I find that very respectable. I look at myself and find that I am far too hesitant in my approach to my peers, but I am unsure how to overcome this. I wish to respect their beliefs and desires, but also wish to introduce them more to the gospel. Have you had success in overcoming this shyness to talking to others about the Gospel and the Book of Mormon in your life and what have you found to be successful. Edit: On that note, I will say I LOVE the current homepage of the Church. Right at the top it introduces topics for those interested in the Church and covers basic ideas that will help interest those who stumble upon it. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/?lang=eng&cid=rdb_v_ldsorg

It doesn't take much to see them on the forum. In fact, you can find accusatory statements in this very thread that are not made by me. However, it would be impolite to point out specific theads or posts at this time. In addition, if I were to do so, I imagine some people who made them would take slight. Furthermore, there are those that probably would use that as evidence that I was targeting individuals, or being mean, or insulting someone (as has already been lobbied at me and of which I responded to in an attempt to say, this was not my purpose). For that reason, I think it is better if I do not get more specific in this instance as that would only further the Spirit of Contention which has been rife here. (And this post probably does not help with it either, but being more specific I can only imagine would make it even worse by several factors).

I love watching BYU TV. It's one of the safer channels to watch these days. When they show movies, I enjoy them. My wife has loved that Well show (Holly at the Well, or something like that, they have a well that grants wishes).

I can answer part of that, maybe. Social Security goes out monthly. If someone dies and the check goes out for them, that money in many instances needs to be paid back. For example, say you receive your SS check on the Second Wednesday of the Month in May. You are good. Then you die on May 19th. Your family is very busy. They make funeral arrangements, they go over your will, they get things situated. Everyone is busy and no one remembers that they need to contact Social Security, or for some reason it gets overlooked. The money for you goes out on the Second Wednesday of the Month in June. Then it goes out on the Second Wednesday of the Month of July. Then, someone in the government catches on that you are dead by the checks and balances that are built into the digital landscape these days. They request a death certificate from the Funeral Home or from your family directly or from the County or City. All that money that they paid out is an improper payment and needs to be paid back. Occasionally these things still get missed in the databases, and/or someone directly is trying to deceive the Social Security Administration by not reporting the death and not having a body (the story of someone keeping a spouse or relative in the freezer for a decade comes to mind). Those are also improper payments. These are far more rare, but do happen, but normally after long enough the SS will send someone out to investigate (though, with how positions are being cut in the government, I'd imagine the SS investigators will be some of the first cut). That's an interesting career for those interested. For deaths, it's normally something sparked curiosity that something wasn't right, or someone is so old (for example, once one turns a certain age, without validation that they are still alive an investigator may be sent out...if President Nelson wasn't such a big character in the public eye he may actually be one of those on the yearly investigative list) that they need to a validation check.

The the first list, not the second. The Second is accounts payable, which I imagine is the one they don't want Musk to access. This one has been available publically since...I think...2017??? So...old news? AT least this sure looks similar to the numbers on that list, at least the older ages. It lacks some of the other information (other list was more specific). You don't need a classified level of clearance to see it. It can also be useful (though census is more useful) for historians and such. What happened is that this list was established prior to computerizing it in the modern way, and much of the paperwork was not digital. In order to hunt down some of this information would take more money than it would simply to write the people off if there was not paperwork substantiating that the individual was still alive. This is a list of SS created and not verified dead, vs. the accounts payable list.

1. The Book of Mormon teaches us to elect righteous leaders. When that isn't possible, we have been taught in the past to try to elect those who are the most righteous (or the more righteous). The Book of Mormon is FULL of stories of what happens when one does not elect righteous leaders. 2. It is very evident that Trump is an Anti-Christ. They are those that either directly deny the Lord, or, if we go with how Joseph Smith sometimes portrayed in (such as in relation to Bennet), they are those whose actions lead others away from the Lord and/or who do the opposite things that the Lord does. 3. If one worships Jesus, than they talk about Jesus's teachings. They follow what he preaches and they make him the center of their lives. We love Jesus Christ and we love him enough that we want others to know about Jesus. He is our all, and we wish for others to also become his followers so they can also feel his spirit and his love. If someone else is the center of your life to the point that you talk about him far more than you do about Jesus, on a forum dedicated to Jesus's gospel and his teachings, what does that say about us? When so much of the discussion centers around someone who does the opposite of what the Lord teaches us to do in his normal life, who is consumed by pride, lust, and greed, than I find more written on it than other topics (even though there are other topics I read), whose forum am I supposed to think this is? 4. I am expressing how I feel. I do not feel comfortable when everything seems designed to tell those (who are not US citizens (I am a citizen, in the past I have quite a bit outside the US and have quite a number of non-US friends) or those who may not feel super positive or super supportive of how Trump acts) that they are the wicked and fallen, that they are the enemy, and they should be ashamed of themselves on this forum. Many posts have been written praising Trump and telling anyone who is not lockstep in line with him (akin to what I would even say is worship) that they were the enemy, or they were the ones causing problems and are terrible people. This is Trump worship. You may tell others to repent, but let it be about actual things with not following Jesus Christ. 5. If I despised you or others on this forum, I would not return at all. AS it is, I do not feel comfortable with so many posts trying to tell me to repent of not praising Trump (and I should mark, no one on this forum knows how much I do or do not support Trump or his policies. There are posts out there which probably show I have positive ideas on a policy or two of his, and of course those that show I have negative opinions, so regardless of what one thinks, I do not think anyone here actually knows what my thoughts are on this because I don't go on and on about them. The only thing I've been explicitly clear on is that Trump is a wicked man and his actions are Anti-Christ. If a man in the Book of Mormon was Anti-Christ because he was doing all sorts of sin and leading others to do that sin as well....hmmm). People tend not to go to places where they feel uncomfortable. I am pointing that out. A majority of the members today are not Conservative members in the United States. If I feel uncomfortable with how many of the discussions on this forum are as a multi-year member of the forum and a conservative, I imagine there are a lot of others who are even more uncomfortable. This supposedly is a forum that discusses the gospel of an International Church called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If it is, let it be that. Not the forum where President Trump is the focus. How is praising Trump and telling those who do not agree with an action of his that they are the enemy going to help convert others to the Gospel? How is that going to help others learn to Love God with all their heart, and to love their neighbors as themselves? How is that helping someone to get interested in reading the Book of Mormon or to feel the Spirit. 6. When I read some of the posts here, I feel a very strong spirit of hatred against others like me, and that brings within me the spirit of contention. Neither of those are conducive to the Spirit of the Lord and it makes me feel terrible. That is why I have not come to this forum as much, because I do not want to feel that type of terrible spirit within me. I want to have the Spirit of the Lord. I came to the forum many years ago because it was one of the few that tried to make being positive about the Church and the gospel a priority. It tried to welcome faithful members as a focus of the forum, and those that would tear the gospel down as an anathema. I loved that about the forum and I still find it in the gospel forum most of the time. The other forums also used to have a similar feel (or off topic...was off topic and normally not political, or as political). As I said above, if this forum is still a Forum about the gospel of Jesus Christ, then let it be that.

Irony. On these forums I joke that I am considered a Liberal (which I think I am). In regards to many of the veiws expressed here at times, I suppose I have differing views than others). Here's where the irony comes in. I am not considered a "Lefty", not even a "Liberal" by anyone outside of these forums. In fact, most would consider me somewhat conservative (some would label me very conservative for some opinions I hold). I consider myself an independent (that probably leans conservative). With that said... I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I worship the Lord Jesus Christ as my Savior, and our Father in Heaven who is our God. This forum in the past few months seems to have transitioned from being a Forum for Latter-day Saints to one that worships Trump. That means I have not been participating as often or as much. I do NOT worship Trump, and forums where they worship him are not that attractive to me. I'd say one "derangement" is being so fervent about an individual that you replace your own religion with faith in them and what they are doing. Even worse, that you put your belief in what an individual is doing above those principles and teachings that the gospel has. It is no secret that I've said Trump is either The Anti-Christ or An Anti-Christ. If one feels that is derangement, so be it, but at the end of the day, there is only One God I worship and his gospel is the one that I follow. I feel the overly abundant worship (and praise, almost like they feel Trump is not human and infallible) people heap on Trump here is actually a turn off for many who are followers of our Lord. This forum should appeal to those who follow the gospel, not just those Americans (and a few others) who believe in Trump and despise all those who do not.

I'm more from the older school of thought where (unless you are a soldier in war and ordered for combat, or an officer of the Law in the process of enforcing the law and doing their duty) you never hit a woman. In that way, the following may also sound extremely...none PC for those who trend for these things these days. So...some of these answers should be self explantory. 1. It is not justified. A Man should never hit a woman. Only a Coward would hit a woman. It's the same reason why Transgendered individuals (Male to Female) should not be allowed in Woman's sports (I have no problem with any of them competing in Men's sports, however). Men have biological advantages that put them physically superior (one reason why we have women's sport's in the first place) in regards to body strength. It's not a fair situation when comparing relative strength. Men should never hit women (unless, with the exceptions noted above). 2. Proper response is to move away from the woman. If he is lacking physical ability to actually run if needed (men can also normally run faster then Woman) then he is allowed to defend himself (not hitting her, he can block any more punches tossed at him, however. That does not mean striking her, it literally means blocking her punches or kicks if she decides to do more). Moving away from her is the better option. If it is severe enough, file a police report. However, try not to engage physically with her. That is a losing proposition if one does so. 3. Absolutely not acceptable. If the first situation was questionable (he hits her after she punches him), even though she is the aggressor, at this point, his response is far outweighing her actions. If she is severely hurt and he is caught, the charges are going to be far worse for him. 4. She may, in theory, be able to be charged with battery in situation #1. Depending on the situation, she may be able to be charged with other items (for example, spousal abuse). It would depend on what he could prove (does he have photographic evidence, bruises, anything?). In the next situation, if she can show bruising or results from his punch (far more likely) it is probably the man who is going to suffer far more and be more likely to be charged (just how society is...another reason to refrain from ever hitting a woman, even if you do not believe in old values). In the situation where he suplexes her, if there is any evidence whatsoever, I think that man is going to jail. 5. A man hits a woman? The woman is absolutely justified at hitting back at him. In fact, if he hit her first, I'd let her take a hammer or a tool an hit him back (legally...don't do that. That's a good way to get charged with some pretty bad things). I'd say the best thing for the woman is to try to get out of there (same as I'd advise the man to do in the prior situation), but I have no problem with a woman hitting back at a man. If she can actually suplex the man (that's going to be far more rare than the opposite), that could also bring serious charges against her. Depending on how hard he hit her with his fist (most woman cannot kill a man with a punch, but many men could kill a woman with punches), it may fall under self defense. In general though, since he turned his back on her, it is also unjustified that she does that. I imagine many would consider my responses very old fashioned and out dated. That may be true, but I think being a gentlemen should never be outdated.

We are also upsetting some of our closest allies, which is never a smart idea. Russia loves it, China loves that we are doing this, so does North Korea. Tariffs can be useful, but we shouldn't be upsetting our allies while doing it (along with other threats, like telling Denmark that they should give us Greenland). Also, anyone who thinks other countries will pay the Tariff are kidding themselves. Tariffs are paid on items coming into the country, and thus are paid for by those who buy those items in that country.

I watched a documentary a few years ago (may have been longer than that) about Moses. In it, it discussed a point where the Red Sea's water level decreases in some areas during some parts of the year. In it, they showed an individual actually walking across the Red Sea in that portion (note, there was still water, it looked about an ankle deep at it's deepest). They hypothesized that Moses and the Children of Israel could have crossed the Red Sea at the precise time of the year. As it's only temporary, and the area is quite large to walk across, if others tried to follow but were somewhat behind, they could be caught in the middle as the waters came back in. I have no idea if that's what actually happened or not, but if Moses was guided by the Holy Ghost and revelation to cross due to a natural or other type of event rather than doing it as we see in "The Ten Commandments" on film, than I suppose that could be a possibility.

I'd be interested in reading the guy's experience that you noted above. Thank you.

Well, the first thing that comes to mind is who controls the Federal Funds and who controls the money. As per the Constitution (I know, that funny little thing that people Should read and acknowledge as an important document for the US government) Which is also seen as giving the authority to Congress for control of the purse, or control of the Monies situated by the US government. Now...some things which people are assuming but do not understand. 1. Some say that Musk is not appointed nor elected, and that his office is not legal. DOGE is actually not a department that came out of nowhere. It is a renamed department that already existed. It's a renamed United States Digital Service. It means it is a legitimate office from the Executive and thus actually has certain powers granted to it. 2. However, Musk was Not approved by Congress, and none of those he has chosen has gone through approval in Congress. He does not have the mandate of Congress in this matter. He has not gone through the Vetting, and thus, in theory, Cannot touch the budget nor any financials, as that is Not an action of the executive, but a Congressional Action. He does not have the approval of Congress. 3. This is one reason why U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan has continued to place a hold on the Federal Funding issue, as the matters of the purse are Congressional, not Executive. 4. So, the question comes up, what power might Elon Musk have with his department. That's a good question. In theory, he MIGHT have control over Computer systems and anything dealing with the digital world (ala...why he may be able to claim control over the Federal Treasuries Computers??). The problem, once again, comes up that he does Not have the mandate of Congress. Even if the Republican Congressmen support his actions (and there are indications of some rifts within their ranks. Now, some of these are considered more Liberal in their stances, but with a limited control of Congress, meaning you have a majority, but not so massive that you can afford defections, any disruption can be harmful to these ideas that Republicans will simply approve what is happening, especially when some of these are ranking members. Though seen as less far right as others, these are still members of the Republican party. More information from the Guardian 5. So, as long as Republicans agree with Musk, and they retain control over their own party with No defections, Musk MIGHT be safe. However, whether it is legal or not... Whereas he may be able to access the digital footprint, does that actually give him the ability to dictate Funds and where they are going via that access? As per a reading of the Constitution (Once again, something that Conservatives SHOULD actually respect and love, but I think there are many that would wish to ignore it...and note, there are liberals who also wish to ignore it so Conservatives are not alone in this matter), there is nothing in there that gives him the power to do what he is attempting to do. 6. If Republicans have a rift in the party in Congress, he could quickly come up on charges or other items that will directly affect Musk. What's an even bigger possibility is what we see from the other side of the aisle. As much as some wish to disregard what Democrats are doing or saying, with how our government operates, eventually things go from one party to the other. When Democrats gain control of Congress once again, it may be that there will be a dire reckoning coming for Musk (more likely Musk than Trump, as Musk makes a convenient scapegoat in this instance). They feel his actions are illegal and blatantly unconstitutional. It should be taken into account what they may do if they regain power in a few years, and it may not be that pretty. 7. That said, Musk is attempting to do what Conservatives SHOULD have been doing, but blatantly did the opposite of for many years. Th is is cutting down the size of the budget (something which, if you've paid attention to my posts, has been a main sticking point for my contentions against the Republicans of recent years as they have ballooned the debt even more the Democrats, and yet claim to be trying to do the opposite). I'm not sure if this is the right way to do it, but it does seem to be going further at trying to do something to cut the debt than what anyone else has done in the past decade or two.

There isn't. The church says some temple work is illegal to do (note, it is not), but that doesn't stop anyone from doing it for some reason. Relatives are supposed to be the domain of their children or grandchildren or other relatives until at least 110 years. Not for my relatives though. All my relatives apparently had their temple work done (without me...the only member in my family). That does not mean my family was ignorant of what the Church does with sealings, and one of my relatives made it express that they did not want to be sealed to their first husband (who was abusive) and only sealed to their second husband. Guess who was sealed to their first husband prior to any others? The way the church handles their sealing ordinances actually upset me more because I believe in the ordinances (or so I feel I am more upset about it). One of the problems from having a family that is prominent from one area of the world is that many people feel your family is their personal property. It's a wierd state as well. The Church seals women to multiple men these days, as well as men to multiple women (as they have always done since the early days). It's not that much of order in appearance, but pure and unadulterated chaos on the web of who is sealed to who. In that light, as long as both people are dead, if they had some sort of connection, they can be sealed together. This means that if a child had a mother and father who were never married (and never even together, they just had that child together), after both mother and father are dead, they can be sealed together.

I'm more wondering what Congress is doing. Some articles imply Musk went over and beyond any authority he had and hooked up unapproved drives to government computers and is now taking control of Treasury (and computers that are independent of the Federal Government even, which is at least trespass) computers. Those in charge are supposed to be independent OR assigned by Congress from what I understand...and Musk is not that. So...why aren't our Congress members actually doing something...or are they going to be even more useless than normal which is why the Executive is tromping all over their hunting grounds?

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.