JohnsonJones
-
Posts
4067 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Posts posted by JohnsonJones
-
-
So, I still am not buying the picture is the same as Joseph. For starters, the parts which would NOT change do not match. For example, the brows and brow line, whether reveresed or not...do not match. The bones that marcate the brow do not change in death.
The BIGGER mark though is that the entire theory seems to rely on the fact that Emma misidentified what her own husband looked like and called for paintings and pictures of him that did not look like her husband.
That's the part I think I find the hardest to believe out of what they are saying.
-
4 hours ago, Still_Small_Voice said:
I do not trust most of our elections now with the ballot harvesting, ballot curing and no identification in the current voting process. See the thread where I spoke against it here:
https://thirdhour.org/forums/topic/75323-divided-country/page/3/#comment-1091247
We need to put a lot of restrictions on vote by mail and require previously registered voters to show up at the polls with identification to vote again.
I'd agree with voters showing up to vote with ID (come on folks, it's not THAT hard to get an ID, it takes TIME though), with the caveat...they NEED to open more voting places if they want everyone to vote in person...INCLUDING the areas that do not lean towards your party (there's been a move in some states to get rid of voting locations in large urban areas....and try to restrict how many can vote in those urban areas). Also, make it so that an employer can be FINED if they try to make it so that their employees do not have time to vote...OR try to mandate (same with unions) or force their employees to vote a specific or certain way.
Ensure every US citizen who has the right to vote has the opportunity to vote...and I'm right there with you in saying that making sure those who vote have identification and show up in person at the polls is the right thing to do.
-
Okay, reading various news feeds and stumble across this on Yahoo News.
Jack Posbiec calls for the end of Democracy at CPAC
Quote“Welcome to the end of democracy. We are here to overthrow it completely,” Posobiec said as the event began.
“We didn’t get all the way there on January 6, but we will endeavor to get rid of it and replace it with this, right here,” he said, gesturing to the crowd and holding up his fist.
As he spoke, Bannon laughed and said, “Amen!”
WHAT IN THE WORLD IS THIS!!!!
I immediately tried to find a conservative slant or report on this as I can't believe this story has the entire context of what was being said. If it is...what in the world!!!???
Certainly there had to be an uproar in the audience shouting down such a statement?
I can't believe ANYONE in US politics would say something like this and get away with it!?
Something is seriously wrong with the party if they are having speakers that are allowed to say such things without a TON of pushback and then proclamations against such statements if the article states it in context (I can't believe it is saying all there is, there HAS to be more context to this type of statement than what the article shows...I can't find it though...hopefully someone here can find it where it doesn't sound as bad as it is made out to sound in the article).
-
On 2/21/2024 at 8:05 PM, LDSGator said:
Same. I get a giddy little buzz being called a “shill for the right” by liberals and an “urban elitist” or “sheer evil” by conservatives. Seriously, I absolutely love it.
Ironically, Biden (left of the Reagan Republicans, but still probably one of the more moderate Democrats today) has that same problem. We see him called a far left liberal by one side, and yet his own people are unhappy with him due to him being far too conservative for them.
Haley is probably right on some things. I don't know who would win today between Trump and Biden, but I think Haley would have a far better chance to win over independents if she actually got the nomination.
-
On 2/15/2024 at 10:35 AM, LDSGator said:
It depends on perspective. If you are far right wing, than anyone to the center of the
John Birch Society is a communist. If you are far left wing, then anyone who critiques Mao is a reactionary right winger.
Biden is a traditional liberal/moderate to those of us who aren’t donning MAGA caps or rioting with BLM on the streets.Which is why I always claim to be a far left looney liberal here on these forums.
In real life I have normally been considered somewhat conservative (even if I am officially an independent). I suppose you could call me a Reagan Republican/Conservative in some ways.
But, compared to those who are on the Far right I'm as loony left as anyone else, including those on the Far left...or at least that's what those on the Far Right probably consider me as.
In truth, today, I'm probably more moderate, and probably center right as far as political leanings are concerned, but in relation to the things expressed on these forums at times...I'm the enemy of everything Conservative as far as I can see of my reputation.
I actually prefer Biden to Trump. Biden is actually pretty moderate all things considered and is the best that the Democrats probably can offer in that regards these days. That's also why he stood a chance against Trump. It's not that he's liberal or conservative, but that he appealed more to the middle last election than Trump did. We will see if that is still the case of if Trump (or someone else, who knows, strange things can happen) gets elected.
I don't actualy see Trump as left or right (though ironically the right sees him as conservative). He's more looney and in it for himself than anything else I think. He has conservatives that surround him and thus why many of the policies he had were conservative (because those conservative republicans were the ones enacting them), but he, himself...he has switched back and forth between parties and opinions. He just works for whoever he thinks will get the most for him, himself, and his own.
-
I think it depends on how much People are looking at what Republicans are doing vs. common sense.
The Republicans are trying to impeach Biden and cause trouble for his son...and one of their star witnesses and who they relied on for a LOT of their information was just revealed to be a Russian stooge (and possibly spy/agent to cause disruption and chaos).
The Republicans say they want to stop what's happening at the Border but then vote against the strongest border bill in decades, one they helped craft even!!! And then go on to have a House impeachment of someone else saying he isn't enforcing the Border...well...you bunch of fools...the same could be said of YOU!!!
They have talked a LOT about the budget and cutting spending...but one of the BIG reasons we are in this mess is because those tax changes you made under Trump (which are expiring for the Middle Class in many ways, but NOT those who actually help PAY a LOT of the Taxes previously) are causing us to have a smaller amount of money and go deeper in DEBT! How about actually putting your actions where your mouth is, undo those tax cuts for the wealthy and in general and get a sensible monetary policy (that most others do) where you actually need to have an INCOME to pay the bills, rather than constantly trying to cut your income and then blame someone else for all the bills??
I'm probably a conservative leaning independent, and in the past I've loved some of the Republican lawmakers, but I'm about sick of the clown show they've been running in the House. They are chasing away a lot of moderate who are now choosing to retire rather than re-run for election. They are making those left even less desired as those I would like in office.
I don't know who will win or won't win, but I say let's be done with the conspiracy theories and just kick out the Do NOTHING Republicans who hypocritically say one thing and do the exact opposite (for example, the border...let's be realistic...that bill was the BEST bill they could have hoped for since they don't fully control their OWN HOUSE because they are split and they don't control the Senate...a vote against it was a vote for do nothing because anything THEY come up with that is stronger won't stand a chance of passing and THEY KNOW IT).
-
Not lost scripture or revelations, but there are some biblical revelations on the matter
Quote9 Stay yourselves, and wonder; cry ye out, and cry: they are drunken, but not with wine; they stagger, but not with strong drink.
10 For the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered.
11 And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed:
12 And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.
13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:
14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.
Isaiah 29: 9-14 (and more if you read through the end of the chapter).
Quote15 The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying,
16 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim and for all the house of Israel his companions:
17 And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand.
18 And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not shew us what thou meanest by these?
19 Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.
Ezekiel 37:15-19
-
We may have to reorganize the wards in our stake. While I think we have 20 priesthood holders in each ward that fulfill the requirements, I'm not sure each ward currently has 250 members in it. Last time I looked at our roll I think our ward had sub-200 members which I found...interesting.
-
3 hours ago, Jamie123 said:
Come to think about it, bears must be able to climb trees, otherwise how would they get to the bees' nests?
Right now though I'm dealing with another issue: namely can hermaphrodites make themselves pregnant? It seems some species can, but its never been reported in humans. But does that mean it couldn't happen?
Not a doctor, so obviously this is NOT from a medical perspective or a professional's perspective on the matter.
Regarding Humans...
From my little understanding, in THEORY it is possible. It has never happened.
If one was born with a FULL set of Gonads and the chemical makeup was just right...it MAY be possible. There may need to be some medical work to make it possible (IVF).
Normally only one full set of gonads are there with another incomplete set. Even then, with a complete set the estrogen or testosterone being produced could be too much for a chemical balance of the individual for a fertilized cell to survive.
So, in theory...possible. In reality...has not happened (that we know of) yet, and hasn't seemed viable in those we know of.
Even if it is possible, the question is if it doesn't occur naturally (needs medical intervention to occur), should we allow such a thing. We already have laws against incest for a reason. This would probably be several times worse than incest in regards to a genetic result and their medical difficulties.
-
2 hours ago, Ironhold said:
Couple this with the events of the last 20+ years, and people no longer see the military as a "three hots and a cot" proposition they can fall back on when they're in financial need.
I don't deal with recruiting or with a bunch of young fellows (or ladies") who are jumping over themselves to join the military today so I don't know the exact reasons why some of them join, but I HAVE heard that in today's environment, the Military actually pays exceptionally well for those who graduate with degrees, and even for those who join out of high school IF they finish their technical training and stay on track to be promoted on the regular by the time they graduate that training. As pay goes up in relation to inflation, it's kept track of pay increases much better than most jobs in the civilian world.
That said, there also seems to be a thought among some of the young people I teach that serving in the military is a thing of last resort when one cannot do otherwise. This, of course, is not shared by those I know who are currently serving in the guard or reserves as they go to school (and more rarely, the ones who have already served [more rarely because they are rarer to come across], though sometimes their opinions vary on the matter) who seem to do it to help them get through school and have it paid for. (And if I may, this is ALSO a reason to try to go to a school with in-state tuition. With some of the tuition fees today, if you are out of state you would still need far more money to pay tuition and fees, whereas in-state you could probably afford the entire thing on the G.I. Bill).
1 hour ago, zil2 said:No, it wouldn't. And hereby you expose what is so wrong with "woke" - they think this is a measure of whether an organization is discriminating or fair. The only reasonable goal here would be:
"It would be nice also if women, gays, transsexuals, ethnic minorities, minority religions etc have equal opportunity to achieve / enter all ranks and trades if they want..."
But the insane people behind today's nonsense seem to think that there's a proportionate number of all those "groups" that want every possible job there is, as if the percentage of women who want to be plumbers is exactly the same as the percentage of men who want to be plumbers which is exactly the same as the number of [name your absurd group] who want to be plumbers, etc. The whole idea is absolutely absurd if you think about it for even a split second. But no, until plumbers proportionately represent our absurdly defined groups, the universe is unjust*.
Hereby, they reject the individual's right to choose what the individual wants to pursue in order to force (and that would be the only way) their proportionate percentages of each group into every job out there. What's that, gay man, you don't want to be a plumber? Tough luck, we're short by one gay male plumber, and you're it! Here's a monkey wrench, now pull those pants down a little and let that crack show!
(*Meanwhile, the universe thinks we can all go jump off a cliff for all it cares.)
I don't know about the military currently, but in civilian life it can sometimes be harder than that.
There is a MINIMUM Quota for them to meet. If they have less then the minimum then they need to recruit more woman (or minorities) of sorts, but if they have exceeded that there is no requirement to get to a specific percentage. They can keep hiring woman and minorities at the expense of the White Male. There is no set percentage for White Males in general, so if you only have woman and minorities and no White males then you are good in the eyes of those who wish to have those percentages. This is also no representative of the population. This is because they associate white men with what they call the white male privilege.
This can make it harder for some to gain employment. On the otherhand, I see where they are coming from. Even at our university we have a greater portion of the professors as White men. There is something to the idea that white men still have an upper hand at attaining certain things in our western society. This doesn't mean that EVERY white male will ALWAYS be seen as superior to other social groups, or that even most white men will be able to reach unprecedented heights of wealth and power. it merely means that all things being equal, that if you have to equal candidates, that those who are white will be given the better opportunity. If you have a white man from poverty and a minority from middle class, it would still mean that minority from middle class probably will have a better opportunity than the other. BUT in general, if they are both from an equal point, than the white man will still, in general, have a better outcome in equal situations.
I can see this reflected in our various positions at the University, and as you get higher in the ranks/promotions you see it more starkly. The Deans and members of the University boards tend to have more white men than anyone else.
I think that woman and minorities would probably enjoy the pay and leadership opportunities just as much as others in these instances, but with how society works, in general they tend to be less represented the higher in position you go. Sure, we have one woman on the university board (out of many positions), but that is one in relation to many.
So, CURRENTLY I tend to agree with the idea that there is an idea of privilege in our society and that something probably should be done to equalize things out (which means I CAN be persuaded to think differently on it if one has a persuasive enough argument), but I also agree that sometimes it seems a bit unfair on how we try to do it.
-
20 hours ago, Jamie123 said:
Really? "Attack of the Zombie Flesh-Eating Pooh"? That's just not right.
P.S. Is this what you're referring to?
Hmmm. Sometimes, just because you CAN DO A THING, does not mean you SHOULD DO A THING.
-
On 2/6/2024 at 6:44 AM, askandanswer said:
When the missionaries saw what happened, they called the counsellor in the District Presidency, who had been the Branch President at the time this person was baptised about 7 months ago.The counsellor in the District Presidency called me the next day and told me what he had been told and asked me to attend the court hearing the next day. The fact that the missionaries saw it was repeated by the Branch President a week or so later.
This sounds like it would be hearsay (I heard it from someone else who heard it from the witness). I'd say if you are truly still concerned, tell the Mission President as @laronius mentioned above and let him handle it from there.
-
In another thread there was a post about the necessity of each member of the Godhead. In it, there was a thought that all three were needed as the task each had to do would not be able to be accomplished (necessarily) by the others. In this, someone asked if this means that they are suggesting that the power of the Father in the trio is limited.
That's a good question.
In the Bible it never says that The Father or the Son are Omnipotent (and it does not say they are Omniscient or Omnipresent either).
It does state that they are Almighty. What does this mean? Does it mean or imply that they are Omnipotent?
Many times it comes from the Term El Shaddai...which when they translated it into Greek was Almighty...but that word doesn't mean Almighty in hebrew.
It means the Breasted one, or could also mean the Mountain or the Sufficient one.
Other verses carry the implication that he has great power, that he is able to do things because HE IS (or I...or I AM). He is power. It can also mean that he is the mightiest of them all, but not necessarily Omnipotent.
We know as a fact that he actually has chosen to limit himself in his power and what he can do. He has given us our free agency, which in turn means that he does use his power to control what we choose. We have the freedom to choose for ourselves.
Thus the old question, could he make a rock he could not lift...and thereby making it so he was no longer Omnipotent? The answer could be...yes...he chooses to limit his Omnipotency in order to allow certain things to be able to happen (like us being given the freedom to choose for ourselves and make our own choice).
It could also be, if we read the King Follet discourse and believe in it, that though he is the Mightiest of them all as far as we are concerned, he also has a Father and rules which he also must obey or pay heed to. Thus, he also has laws and rules which let him do things, and perhaps also limit what he might be able to do.
For example, we read that he does not allow any with any stain of sin into his presence. This is something he does not allow. This is a limitation on him, then, that would require someone who CAN have those who have sinned be recognized and reconciled before him, so that they can be cleansed and be presented before the Father in a sinless state. This would be the Savior's role to take upon him our sins. The Holy Ghost also has a role in this and also helping us and teaching us (as well as comfort).
So, I suppose it's a good question...is the Father Omnipotent? Is that any different than Almighty? Does it really matter as far as we are concerned?
-
On 2/1/2024 at 7:44 AM, rcthompson88 said:
A different temple, but I have liked this article about the significance of the eight pointed star that litters the San Diego Temple. Though I will say upfront that I find the connection of this symbol with the "Seal of Melchizedek" to be a bit dubious.
That is known as the Star of Abraham. It is used a lot in Islamic construction and symbolism. Ibrahim or Abraham is one of their most Holy Prophets. Not only was he the father of Ishmael, but he also supposedly purged the world of idolatry and showed them the correct way to worship. He also built the Kabbalah (sp?) and was the Holy Prophet of his time.
Some Hypothesize that Israel anciently may have also used this symbol originally. Of interest, it would be then that both groups who claim to be descended from Abraham may have used this symbol
As for it being the Seal of the Melchizedek Priesthood...I don't know. The Islamic religions do not make that claim as far as I know and neither do the Jewish religions or scholars that have the hypothesis about it's prior usage in the region.
If I had to hazard a guess, IF IT IS the Seal of the Melchizedek Priesthood it is due to Abraham. He received the Melchizedek Priesthood most likely from the Priest of Salem, or Melchizedek.
In this it could be that this symbol was originally used BY Melchizedek and as Abraham became the rightful heir of that lineage and it's blessings, which in turn blesses the entire earth as we also must trace our lineages back to him, it also became his symbol. Hence, this symbol not only would be the Star of Abraham, but also a symbol tracing it's heritage to Shem and then to Noah and from there to Adam eventually.
That's just a wild guess on my part though.
The Star of Abraham is a well known Islamic symbol used prolifically today. I'm not sure why it doesn't show up on Google searches or other things (I did a quick check so I could post some references for everyone, but I couldn't find one on the internet via google...which is surprising to me. It is such a well known symbol in the Middle East and it's symbology I am surprised that it isn't something that is easily found via google).
- Just_A_Guy and rcthompson88
-
2
-
Take the idea of if you were not a member, what would you do?
If it is something that you would normally report to the police or a lawyer, then you probably should report it to the police or authorities. If it is not, then probably keep out of it. Same would apply to whoever you would report it to.
Simply being a member does not grant any special immunity or rights beyond other citizens as far as I know.
At the point that the authorities are made aware of something, and you have said all you know, than it becomes something between the lawyers, authorities, and the mission president. He is the one that probably would be who decides whether missionaries get involved or not.
Missionaries get tickets, they have car accidents, and unfortunately, sometimes have legal matters. The individual who presides over the mission and thus the missionaries is the one who gets to decide how to handle these matters.
Of more interest is how you KNOW the missionaries were actually witnesses to an event or not? Were you also a witness? In that case, it would probably be easier if you just told them what you saw and who was present. If you are not a witness a question would arise how you would know who was or was not present?
Is it hearsay? Is it Gossip? Both are not good reasons to try to get involved (in my opinion). Unless you are positively absolute about the information you wish to give out, you probably should think harder about whether to give it out or not.
If you are a witness in some way to the event though, you should probably tell them what YOU saw and heard and let the lawyer or authorities take it from there.
-
Shouldn't there be 12 stars then...or are there (I have not counted the number of stars on the SLC temple). One Star for each of the tribes of Israel?
-
On 1/23/2024 at 12:15 PM, mikbone said:
Figured we needed a positive thread.
My son freakin loves his mission. When he got called to Farmington NM I sighed.
I hate NM. Got like 3 speeding tickets going thru a 30 mile stretch (NE corner of the state) back and forth from Texas and BYU during undergrad. Total speed trap 65 MPH on Texas side and 55 in MN - and no one lives along the road, its totally abandoned other than dirt, weeds, scrub trees and cops dispensing citations!
Anyway, he has been in the Zuni Pueblo for 3-4 months and absolutely loves it. Lots of service (mostly chopping firewood). Confiscating alcohol from the members and the occasional dime bad of cocaine. Had to explain that we don’t take possession of illegal substances. And teaching the gospel.
His letters are great. And his attitude is spot on. The ward Sunday attendance has gone from < 10 to over 40.
Once again the Lord knows best.
I don't think I can have any empathy for you getting speeding tickets in this case. If you can't slow down by 10 miles between Texas and Minnesota...well....
🤓
PS: Can't understand why you'd make such a wide detour going from Texas to Utah, but I suppose that explains why you wanted to speed. Even going 120 MPH would make it a longer trip than going direct.
PPS: Yes...if one cannot tell by now, this is a humor post.
-
18 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:
You can read all the briefs here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-719.html
As of the time I'm posting this, there are dozens of "brief amicus curiae". I read through the first dozen or so, and they were just about all in favor of Trump, making arguments like you're making. Perhaps some opposing briefs are in the ones I haven't read through.
That is actually interesting to hear. The push FELT like they wanted a certain type of slant. In fact, it felt like if you were supposed to write one that suggested that Trump could be taken off the ballot. I obviously (as seen from my post above) object to that line of reasoning.
That said,
I have not read them. I know my post above would be poorly accepted (not formatted right, and everything I stated is based on appearances, feelings and opinion which normally are not acceptable in these types of briefs...so not acceptable at all) but I felt like screaming in the wind about it.
The Court (in my opinion) prefers facts and precedence.
I haven't read the briefs though so I am unsure how they present such things.
-
-
On 1/17/2024 at 7:44 PM, mikbone said:
I don’t even wanna talk about Gasoline.
I paid $1.50/gallon yesterday. That was with some of it off (cheaper than normal), but it was quite inexpensive for me. Bread was around $2.50 a loaf. A Dozen eggs is under $3. A gallon of milk is around $2.49 so not terrible.
California on the otherhand was running around $4.70 a gallon which is a massive difference of costs.
-
I came today to write on a very similar subject. This deals with the case of taking Trump off the Ballet in Colorado and possibly in other locations. There has been a push from a few directions for individuals with Doctorates in certain areas to write briefs to the Supreme Court. These briefs take the slant that Trump can be taken off the Ballot for the election of President.
I did not write one and I did not send a brief. I understand several dozen have been sent to the Supreme Court.
Now, it is NO SECRET on these forums that I am not a fan of Trump. I think it should be clear then that I feel these moves are absolutely politically slanted. I DO NOT know who sent all the briefs, but I expect a majority to be those who would already be opposed to Trump more strongly than I am, not due to what he has supposedly done with any insurrection, but simply due to his other actions.
I do not support the idea that Trump committed an insurrection. I'd prefer the election to be open and Trump, at least currently, be allowed on the Ballots. I do not like him, nor his politics, but I think he has not had a conviction which bars him from the ballot yet. I feel he could be a threat to the Constitution, the Republic, and any democratic elections in the future if he gains power, but that does NOT warrant (In MY OPINION) for him to be barred. Fear is NOT a reason to take away rights.
I DO not feel Trump committed an insurrection on January 6th for the following reasons.
1. I do not feel Trump is mentally sound enough to actually plan something like an insurrection. Trump basically says whatever is on his mind at the moment he is talking. It could be a lie, it could be the truth, but whatever he is currently thinking about, he blurts out. IN that, you can take him as remarkably up front with his thoughts, or remarkably profuse in lying half the time. He doesn't seem the have the forethought to actually recognize what he says and how he says it may affect him in the future. The greatest example of this yet was his behavior towards a trial which he was fined over 80 million dollars recently. If he had any forethought at all, this was a penalty he should have EASILY been able to avoid. Now he has smart people around him that can plan and think these things up, but Trump...in my opinion, it's beyond his ability to do something like this. It would mean he had to be able to plan in detail, and then plant certain individuals, and then without others noticing and not mentioning it, move these individuals into place in order to actually try to overthrow the US government. I do not feel he exhibited this ability nor has this ability. Perhaps others on his staff, but I don't think Trump would understand exactly what they were doing even if he wanted to.
2. He hasn't even been CHARGED with insurrection. If it was so clear cut, there should be charges regarding this directly.
3. You all saw the videos of January 6th. Did this appear to be a group of militant individuals that were performing a precisely organized military attack? It did not appear that way to me. I saw several things.
a. It appeared that most of them didn't know WHAT they were doing. They joined in on a mob. When they actually got into the Capital they acted more like confused tourists that were going around with the freedom to do as they wanted. They acted more like people who were in a grocery store they were visiting than a focused group intent on taking over the government.
b. I've seen videos from the BLM riots, and I've seen January 6th and they appear very similar. The difference was who were there involved with the riots. Some of the BLM riots were more destructive than the one on January 6th (though not towards government buildings generally). If the BLM riots were just riots, I would think that this was more likely a riot in general than an attempted insurrection.
c. Yes, I think there were a few there that had a strategy to do some very nefarious things to members of government. I think it was an extremely small segment of individuals who were planning these things out. They had a hand in creating the mob and directing it. I think they were not one united group, but several groups. They composed less then 1% of the mob. They had some very horrible things they planned to do and we are lucky they didn't get to do them. I do not think that they would have overthrown the government even if they were successful. They could have caused some serious damage, but not overthrown the government.
d. I think Trump was delighted that there were people who so fervently supported him, but I do not think he realized that it would be perceived that he was pushing them to cause an insurrection. I don't think the thought actually even entered his mind. I think he was trying to OVERTURN an election, but I don't think he realized it would be seen by some as an insurrection. With the exception of the few mentioned in part c, I highly doubt most of the mob that were rioting even had the thought that they could be seen as being part of an insurrection. I think the thought of that would have horrified most of them. Most of them probably thought they were patriotic and being highly loyal to their nation.
4. I do not think if they were successful they would have actually overthrown the US government and succeeded. I don't think that was most of their intent, nor do I think that was Trump's intent. He didn't want to kill everyone in Congress. That wouldn't have done him any good. I think he wanted people to protest the validation of the electoral votes, but not to actually go and kill the very people who would have to make the decision whether to validate or not. He wanted Congress to make a decision that would be favorable to him, not to destroy Congress so no decision could be made that day at all.
IN ending, I do not support the idea that Trump should be tossed off the ballot due to fomenting an insurrection. It's a nonsense thing that if we accept that states can just toss off a presidential candidate because they feel like he broke a certain rule or not, it could cause a dangerous precedence in the future where states can accuse anyone they do not like of causing an insurrection or other item to disqualify a candidate someone does not like.
I still do NOT support Trump. I still am not going to vote for him at this time. However, if Trump is to be defeated, let it be via a legal way rather than trying to create ways that could cause a serious problem in the future (In MY OPINION).
PS: I feel Abbott in Texas is closer to an insurrection than Trump ever was. If I were Biden I'd push the issue. Nationalize the Texas national Guard along with any other states whose guard members are there. Then tell them to take down the barriers. Those who refuse to obey are court martialed. If the Texas Governor orders his Texas State Guard (different than the Texas National Guard, State guard are ONLY answerable to the Governor) and police to fight against these nationalized troops, THEN he really IS basically forming an insurrection. He's already coming somewhat close to it in refusing to obey the Supreme Court and the US Federal Government, but he hasn't actually started or gotten involved in fighting against them...YET. That's FAR more concerning in my opinion in regards to what COULD cause an insurrection than what Trump did on January 6th.
-
4 hours ago, Vort said:
This is all interesting on a sort of academic level, I suppose. On a personal level, I am curious why the Priesthood ban was in place—especially since it's obvious that a man of black African descent could hold the Priesthood before 1978, as demonstrated by Elijah Abel and others. The video you reference suggests a fascinating possibility, one I'd like to investigate.
But curiosity notwithstanding, my main personal concern is the increasingly common belief that the Priesthood ban itself was some sort of horrible mistake, an unqualified evil that somehow infiltrated the Church under Brigham Young. This belief I consider to be tantamount to apostasy. It is not merely disloyal (though it is quite clearly that). It is pandering and obsequious, a capitulation to political correctness and an open demonstration of shame at the mockery from those in the great and spacious building.
We should be better than that. Nephi showed us the correct response to such mockery. It's high time we started to engage more actively and regularly in "heed[ing] them not".
Personal thoughts..
I do not know personally what initiated it, but I have my suspicions it started to come to light when Joseph Smith was receiving revelation in translating the Bible (Old Testament) as well as when he was having revelatory inspiration in regards to his translation of scrolls which led to the Book of Abraham.
Though the Church has an ESSAY (Which I may remind people, is actually not written by General Authorities and is normally from people like yours truly and others who study out the item, it is/was then approved for posting on the site and thus is actually NOT doctrine, nor even policy per se, but informational for your growth and knowledge), the actual doctrines of the church on the issue is not so clear cut.
The Pearl of Great Price on which passages the ideas of Brigham Young (and even Joseph Smith's though we do not focus so much on his later ideas on this) support this idea of a curse were NOT doctrine or scripture at the time, but the prophet would have been well aware of them and this is why I feel his thoughts first pondered on these and received revelation accordingly.
These passages became scripture (and thus doctrine) later, and are STILL considered officially scripture and Doctrine today in the Pearl of Great Price. They are scriptures which some find hard and cause some to stumble due to the pride they have in putting modern values over revelation and scripture.
-
On 1/28/2024 at 3:19 PM, laronius said:
Brigham Young: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a sin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the Holy Priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to."
I had heard that first part before and there are differing opinions as to whether he was just expressing opinion or not. But the second half about when the blacks would receive the priesthood is new to me. Is that how it happened? Did they not receive the priesthood until it was deemed fulfilled that the priesthood had been sufficiently offered to non-black races first? I don't know how that would be measured but I thought it was interesting, in lieu of no official answer.
If I understand you correctly, this is exactly how it happened.
The Priesthood had the chance to be offered to all those who would be part of the groups to be offered it first, and after that had been fulfilled, the priesthood was opened to others.
Of interest, this could also be seen in lieu of another item Brigham Young had instituted (but I won't go into detail of all the areas of which this was discussed or pursued due to the location and wording of it) where he had Saints pledge the Lord's vengeance on those who murdered the prophet up to the third and fourth generations. That would have ALSO been fulfilled (And thus ended as anything that was remarked about it) around the same time and should have been done away with (as it was) in the ensuing years (I believe up until the beginning of the 90s?? decades sometimes meld together) along with other items in reference to it.
I'll read the rest of the thread to see if anyone says anything that sways me differently though.
-
3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
If I were woke, I'd take offense to that. Aren't you glad you're not talking to a woke Asian?
Does that mean you are currently sleeping?
It's already in the afternoon where I'm at. What time do you normally wake up at?
(The above is a JOKE...please accept it as that and nothing more).
New POTUS this year
in Current Events
Posted
Pray and choose the best one according to your conscience.
To me, Trump is apologetically a liar, thief and adulterer. If nothing else, Joe Biden goes to church, has not committed adultery as far as we know, and loves his family.
That's not to say Joe Biden is a great or perfect person, he's not. There are many that are much more moral and righteous than he is, but of the two, he seems to me to be the more righteous individual.
It has nothing to do with the policies in this, just pointing out that this is one factor behind my decision of who I'll probably vote for.
The other is that there are comments from Trump that sound scarily like what Hitler said before he seized power and some of the things Trump has inferred sound scarily as if he would do away with democracy and other items if he could. Whenever he says something he points a finger, but three fingers are pointing back at him and normally that's because what he is accusing others of is what he WANTS to do or has tried to do (In my opinion).
From what I've read and seen, that's untrue.
An example of what Trump really feels about Ukraine probably can be seen from the first attempt to Impeach him (individuals call it an impeachment, but only the house called the impeachment, but as he was not convicted by the Senate and acquitted, he wasn't really impeached IMO).
He attempted to withhold aid from the Ukraine for his own personal gain (a futile attempt as the President doesn't hold the purse strings in the way he was trying, Congress does, so it really doesn't make sense that he could be charged under that idea as he didn't have the power to do so in the first place...once again...IMO).
I think Ukraine would be under Russian control today if Trump had been President at the time of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. His initial response to the Russian invasion before his people got him to backtrack says it all to me...
That's my personal opinion. Trump didn't seem to show much spine when he was talking with Putin and Putin seemed to almost always have the upper hand with Trump...almost as if Putin had something over Trump.
That said...my vote will be for Biden if it is between those two most likely...BUT for many who vote that way I expect it's not going to be so much that they are voting for Biden or support him, but that the are voting against Trump.
I honestly think that if the Republicans were being honest with themselves, they'd realize Nikki Haley has a much better chance of winning against Biden than Trump simply for that factor alone. Many will swallow their dislike of democrats just to vote against Trump, but that sentiment isn't there if Haley was running.