person0

Members
  • Content Count

    1850
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    person0 got a reaction from NeuroTypical in A bunch of memes I just made!   
    These are great ūüôā¬† I actually posted mine in this forum because I don't post things on facebook.¬† Sadly, there is too much risk in the workplace environment.¬† ūüėě
  2. Like
    person0 reacted to JohnsonJones in A bunch of memes I just made!   
    I agree that AA is a positive, but it has been weaponized against other minorities recently.  It is used to the advantage of African American communities, and that's a plus, but it is ALSO used as a bludgeon against other minorities.  As it does not apply for some minorities, these minorities that are not covered under it in all instances (and in many cases, Hispanics are called white, even when it is obvious they are of Native descent) the discrimination comes out and it is applied to them greatly.
    The problem is NOT with BLM, at least with those in my camp.  I don't have a problem with the movement itself and what they say they represent, I have a problem with the actions they take that further discrimination against everyone else (every other minority).  You don't get goody points by saying you are being hurt, while taking a crowbar and bashing someone else's brains out.
    Or...another example.  If minorities are down in a pit, and African Americans are on the lowest levels, I can see why we would want to give them care to try to elevate them out of that pit as they would be the most underprivileged in that pit.  However, when they struggle to get out of that pit by pulling others down to their level and then stomping on their heads as they scramble to the top...a LOT less sympathy is suddenly given on their behalf.  Putting themselves to be the aggressors and discriminators of the other minorities does not get them out of the pit, only makes them hurt others that are already down there with them.
  3. Haha
    person0 reacted to NeuroTypical in A bunch of memes I just made!   
    Well, if we're posting memes, might as well have good ones:

     
     

     
     

     
     

     
     

     
     

     
     

     
  4. Like
    person0 got a reaction from Godless in A bunch of memes I just made!   
    I agree, but let it be noted, that while I was mostly one-sided in my humor, I did make fun of the other side in the memes with the old man and the white guy trying to decide which button to push.  Those where two of my favorites, honestly, haha.
  5. Like
    person0 got a reaction from NeedleinA in Faked Protests   
    Pallets of bricks being strategically left in areas of riot:  Article      Video Clip
    I suspect that this is likely more than what it is being made out to be!  Gadianton Robbers come to mind.  Remember, the Book of Mormon was written for our day!
  6. Like
    person0 got a reaction from Anddenex in Return to Church Guidelines   
    I will happily keep my distance, but I'd rather just wait to go back until we aren't expected to wear masks.
  7. Like
    person0 got a reaction from Vort in .   
    I didn't vote for Trump last time, because I thought he was lying and would actually end up being a leftist, so I went third party.  That said, I'm definitely voting for him this time; I feel he has proven enough that he truly cares about our country and wants it to remain the greatest country in the world, and is implementing good policies.  Were you planning to vote third party this November?  Just curious.
  8. Okay
    person0 reacted to Just_A_Guy in .   
    I won’t make myself even more tedious by rehashing all my issues with Trump in this thread.
    Suffice it to say, I’m probably going to write in Russell Nelson.  
  9. Like
    person0 reacted to prisonchaplain in .   
    I suppose Candace Owens (Farmer) is a bit too young . . .
  10. Like
    person0 reacted to Carborendum in Faked Protests   
    No, you haven't.  Bricks have not been used for actual building construction in many many years.  That's what makes this a lot more suspicious than it seems.
    Brick veneers are most often used in building faces.  Those bricks are not veneer bricks. Brick facades (different than veneers) use a different kind of brick.  Those are not the correct bricks. These bricks are most often used for landscaping and similar finish work nowadays.  But there was no such work being done in any of the locations I've seen that are related to these brick locations. Bricks are NOT dropped off one day and used the next, especially in the middle of a city.  A foolish contractor and his money are soon separated. There are some sites where construction was happening.  But of the sites I saw, they were not using these bricks for the construction at hand.
    While not "clear and convincing", to someone familiar with construction, it is very suspicious to have multiple instances of such carelessness at riot locations.
  11. Like
    person0 reacted to anatess2 in Faked Protests   
    It's one thing to not bite on random conspiracy theory.  It's another thing to bury one's head in the sand.
    This is a video of a PROTESTER who took a video of the pile of bricks to make sure he is not counted with whoever is inciting the violence.  Because, this is now turning into Charlottesville - there are multiple groups involved and they all don't have the same intentions.
    https://www.bitchute.com/video/0HkMq3Nu0dAH/
  12. Like
    person0 got a reaction from NeedleinA in Faked Protests   
    Pallets of bricks being strategically left in areas of riot:  Article      Video Clip
    I suspect that this is likely more than what it is being made out to be!  Gadianton Robbers come to mind.  Remember, the Book of Mormon was written for our day!
  13. Like
    person0 got a reaction from NeedleinA in Faked Protests   
    Pallets of bricks being strategically left in areas of riot:  Article      Video Clip
    I suspect that this is likely more than what it is being made out to be!  Gadianton Robbers come to mind.  Remember, the Book of Mormon was written for our day!
  14. Like
    person0 got a reaction from NeedleinA in Faked Protests   
    Pallets of bricks being strategically left in areas of riot:  Article      Video Clip
    I suspect that this is likely more than what it is being made out to be!  Gadianton Robbers come to mind.  Remember, the Book of Mormon was written for our day!
  15. Like
    person0 got a reaction from NeedleinA in Faked Protests   
    Pallets of bricks being strategically left in areas of riot:  Article      Video Clip
    I suspect that this is likely more than what it is being made out to be!  Gadianton Robbers come to mind.  Remember, the Book of Mormon was written for our day!
  16. Okay
    person0 got a reaction from SilentOne in Are LDS open to Theistic Evolutionary Theory?   
    If we agree that it cannot be truly proven either way, then we are merely arguing who's theory is more plausible based on our individual interpretations of the facts.  So. . . chocolate ice-cream is the best flavor of ice-cream because it tastes the best!  Just look at all the EEG scans of people when they were eating chocolate ice-cream; the readings are clear!
    My perspective:  I will adhere as closely to erring on the religious side of the churches 'official' position, which states both of the following things:
    Two things of note:
    1)  Emphasis on the word 'official'.  It is clear that from the majority of Church resources (even those that are recent), that Church publications clearly steer people away from evolutionary theory and toward a more gospel-centric interpretation of the origins of life.
        It is obvious from the above excerpt that the Church takes no issue with continuing to promote and steer individuals toward a more religious interpretation of the origins of life and the earth and away from any sort of dependence upon the philosophies of men.  This is done by presenting individual opinions as such, while at the same time claiming no official stance.
    2)  In the very same statement about 'no official position on the theory of evolution' the Church reiterates that, at the minimum, there were no children of God on earth before Adam, and that he and Eve were non-mortal and non-reproductive until after they became mortal.
    Personally, I prefer to err on the side of what is demonstrably the 'unofficial' position of the Church and to seek explanations that align with that and available scriptural/authoritative sources.  Should revelation come from the Lord that directs us more toward a macro-evolutionary understanding of creation, I will happily accept it.  Would you accept a revelation to the contrary?
  17. Like
    person0 reacted to Just_A_Guy in Return to Church Guidelines   
    D&C 107:65-67:
    65 Wherefore, it must needs be that one be appointed of the High Priesthood to preside over the priesthood, and he shall be called President of the High Priesthood of the Church;
    66 Or, in other words, the Presiding High Priest over the High Priesthood of the Church.
    67 From the same comes the administering of ordinances and blessings upon the church, by the laying on of the hands.
    But it really shouldn’t take a scripture to make that clear.  The whole reason the restoration was necessary, was that the priesthood authority enjoyed by the primitive church was gone.  If priesthood holders had the independent authority to go around doing ordinances all willy-nilly without the approval of a keyholder, then those of the primitive church simply would have passed their priesthood on to the next generation, God would have honored those ordinations, and we’d all be Catholics today.
    But that‚Äôs not what happened. ¬†Legitimate priesthood¬†authority died out‚ÄĒnot because every. single. ordained priesthood holder died simultaneously, but because the priesthood keyholders¬†whose say-so was needed in order to do additional ordinations, disappeared. ¬†¬†
    To suggest that Russell Nelson can‚Äôt instruct priesthood holders *not* to administer the sacrament (or any other rite) in their own home, is to say that a) the entire restoration was unnecessary, and/or b) Nelson is a mere pretender to the scriptural¬†title of ‚Äúpresiding high priest‚ÄĚ.
  18. Like
    person0 got a reaction from Anddenex in Return to Church Guidelines   
    I want them to be safe too.  Even if we open church back up, it may be best to invite our older members to remain at home for a while, unless they choose to accept the risk.  I don't want people to get sick, I would just rather continue to have our private sacrament meeting and primary class that we have been having at home each Sunday than to return to Church with stringent requirements.
    A gun protects against a potential threat of known serious severity.  Current guidelines protect against a known threat of potentially serious severity.
    I am not really concerned if someone in my family contracts COVID-19, even if it causes them to die.  Given all the information available to me, it is a risk I am willing to take, especially for our demographics.  I don't believe that masks are truly effective in preventing the spread of the virus, particularly because my children play with them and take them off and I and my wife end up touching our face even more as we adjust the masks continually to try and alleviate the discomfort of wearing them.
    As far as other people are concerned; I will gladly keep my distance, as I said before; however, if you choose to shake my hand, come within six feet of me, not wash your hands appropriately, that is not on me at all.  If you are at risk and choose to put yourself in a risky situation, that is not my fault.
    Because of the complications of managing additional restrictions beyond distancing from others, I would prefer to wait to return to church services after such restrictions are no longer required.
    As a side note, the inherent flaw in your question is that you are assuming I would return to church and not follow restrictions or guidelines put in place by the Church, when in fact, I simply stated that "I would rather wait" until after the restrictions are lifted.  Just the same as I don't carry in church, despite the fact that I would much rather do so.  I don't break the first rule you mentioned, why would you assume I would break the second?
  19. Like
    person0 got a reaction from Anddenex in Return to Church Guidelines   
    I will happily keep my distance, but I'd rather just wait to go back until we aren't expected to wear masks.
  20. Haha
    person0 reacted to mordorbund in Return to Church Guidelines   
    We all know you're really waiting for the change in the gun policy.
  21. Like
    person0 got a reaction from JohnsonJones in Are LDS open to Theistic Evolutionary Theory?   
    I'm no population expert, but just from the math it seems you didn't subtract the death rate or compound the growth rate.  Is your assumption that the birth and death rate is equal? If, for example, the death rate is 9% then couldn't we can effectively compound the 1% net gain over the time period?  If so, then the population would double roughly every 70 years.  That said, both of those would fluctuate, plus mass extinction vs death events, etc.  Even so, with a .1% net compound birth rate, the population would double every 700 years.  After 8,950 years that would be a total population of ~1.5 Million.
  22. Like
    person0 got a reaction from MrShorty in Are LDS open to Theistic Evolutionary Theory?   
    I understand your point and I enjoyed reading your story; what I don't understand is how that relates to the theory of Adam and Eve being the progeny of an evolutionary line or the actual population growth that has occurred over the course of recorded history.
    I am trying to figure out how we can mesh all the data together from the supporters of organic evolution in this thread so that we spit out a result that doesn't contradict the following:
    Even if we assume the 7000 years didn't begin until after Adam and Eve partook of the fruit and became mortal, how do we tie it all together?  Are we in agreement that the humanoid creatures who supposedly lived before Adam and Eve were not children of God?  I'm sure there are other important questions of note, but alas, my children are calling for me and I must go.
  23. Like
    person0 reacted to Vort in Are LDS open to Theistic Evolutionary Theory?   
    I don't. I believe it is not possible to do so at this time.
    Probably, inasmuch as the scriptures make it clear that Adam was the first man. Other possibilities exist, such as the speculation that this earth has been the cradle for others of Father's children in previous "plans of salvation", so to speak. In such a case, those remains would indeed be children of God, but would have nothing to do with us. I find all sorts of holes in this particular idea, but I don't completely reject it out of hand. The state of our knowledge of such mechanical explanations is so deeply deficient that I think the safest and most correct answer is that we don't know and probably cannot know at this time.
     
     
  24. Like
    person0 got a reaction from MrShorty in Are LDS open to Theistic Evolutionary Theory?   
    I understand your point and I enjoyed reading your story; what I don't understand is how that relates to the theory of Adam and Eve being the progeny of an evolutionary line or the actual population growth that has occurred over the course of recorded history.
    I am trying to figure out how we can mesh all the data together from the supporters of organic evolution in this thread so that we spit out a result that doesn't contradict the following:
    Even if we assume the 7000 years didn't begin until after Adam and Eve partook of the fruit and became mortal, how do we tie it all together?  Are we in agreement that the humanoid creatures who supposedly lived before Adam and Eve were not children of God?  I'm sure there are other important questions of note, but alas, my children are calling for me and I must go.
  25. Haha
    person0 reacted to ldsguy422 in Are LDS open to Theistic Evolutionary Theory?   
    The population he provided is going extinct. Just a matter of time.