Scott

Members
  • Content Count

    498
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Scott last won the day on October 19 2018

Scott had the most liked content!

About Scott

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The quality of discussions on this forum is going downhill fast.
  2. Here is a question about episode VII and VIII. Why did they use Luke in the way that they did in the movie? We don't know for sure, but I mean a real answer, not because they're idiots or something like that. The paid Mark Hamill a boat load of money for what was really a minimal role in the movie. My own guess is that they wanted to use Luke Skywalker in the movie to attract a lot of old fans, but that they didn't want him to overshadow the new characters or their stories, so they give him a minimum role. Thoughts?
  3. Scott

    Why the Fight Over the Wall Matters

    I only knew because I was a combat engineer (12B) in the Army and one of our task was to set such barriers. It is interesting that a tank can blast through a brick wall or building, or clear minefields, but can't get through double strand constertina wire fence. Not when I started out though. We were sent to a few classes, given a few manuals, and then thrown on a project! We would be checked in different meetings though. When I was new, I only had one big screw up (all plans and projects have small errors), but it didn't effect the quality of the project. It was really embarrassing though. Once in white font (which doesn't show on documents), in the specifications, I typed "Scott ____ is the most awesome employee to ever work for CDOT". I forgot about it, since it wasn't until months later that the projects went out to ad and no one noticed it since it was in white font. I had no idea that everything in white font shows up as blank when the ad sets are printed and sent out to all the state offices and contractors. A revision under ad had to go out to everyone who received a set up plans, which included a lot of Colorado, New Mexico, and Nebraska, as well as a lot of state offices. The revision told everyone to disregard the statement. Obviously, I got my butt chewed big time and was harassed about it for a long time. Luckily, it was the only time that I really screwed up while designing or being on a project. Interesting. I do know that items that are paid for by CY and tons are verified by survey (though tons are paid off tickets), so it would be hard to cheat too much on this unless the surveyor, contractor, and project manager were all in on it. It sounds shady for sure, but it could be a lot of things (still shady). The manager could have been trying to cover his own butt for some mistake he or someone else made. For example, they could have used the wrong tare sheets that day and had to reprint all of the tickets (which is still not allowed). Or some of the information was missing or wrong on the ticket. Anyway, good conversation. It has been entertaining and educational for sure.
  4. Scott

    Why the Fight Over the Wall Matters

    I don't agree with you on a lot of things, but if you ever did want to come and see parts of Colorado, especially some of the ones off the beaten track, we'd be happy to show you around.
  5. Scott

    Changing skin color

    Here is question 7 in the Temple Recommend Interview: 7 Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Here is a statement from Church leadership on White Supremacy groups: It has been called to our attention that there are some among the various pro-white and white supremacy communities who assert that the Church is neutral toward or in support of their views. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the New Testament, Jesus said: ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself’ (Matthew 22:37–39). The Book of Mormon teaches ‘all are alike unto God’” (2 Nephi 26:33). White supremacist attitudes are morally wrong and sinful, and we condemn them. Church members who promote or pursue a ‘white culture’ or white supremacy agenda are not in harmony with the teachings of the Church. Notice that it says "white supremacist attitudes", not violence or words. President Hinckley said the following: No man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ.’ For members of the Church, we reaffirm that teaching today and the Savior’s admonition to love our neighbor So how can you be condemned by the Church leadership (condemned is the exact word used in the statement), be not in harmony with the teachings of the Church, and not be a disciple of Christ and yet still receive a temple recommend? Even if the person wasn't vocal about it, the first statement says the mere attitudes are condemned. The Bishop is the one who told us, but we recently moved to a new ward, and yes I will ask him. I'm pretty sure I already know what the answer will be.
  6. Scott

    Changing skin color

    I don't know about the priesthood interview, but Question 7 for the Temple Recommend interview. The things I mentioned are the specifics pertaining to question 7. You can ask your bishop for clarification and confirmation.
  7. Scott

    Changing skin color

    I don't know if he can maintain his membership, but he can't hold the priesthood or a temple recommend.
  8. Scott

    Are LGBT Activists Religious Bigots?

    Criticizing someone for being in an organization isn't the same as trying to prevent someone for being in an organisation. The Pence's aren't alone. A lot of Christians (and non-Christians of course) said that they had a problem voting for a Mormon when Romney was running. Some pastors told people not to vote for Romney because he is a Mormon: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/07/pastor-to-gop-dont-vote-for-romney-because-hes-mormon/comment-page-2/ Is this any different? Is it also concerning. Also look at the uproar when someone Muslim or LGBT was elected to office. I don't know what kinds of things that were said about the Pence's, but is it as bad as those who said things about Muslims or gays in or running for office? Our recently elected governor of Colorado is openly gay and he got all kinds of hate criticism. Is this any different? Bigotry may be wrong, but Christians aren't the only ones being targeted. They aren't the ones being targeted the worse, despite what some people say. I have never been physically harmed for being a Mormon, but I can say that any criticism I have had for being a Mormon came from other people who are Christian. The biggest Christian forum I know of is CARM and the members almost never have anything nice to say about Mormons and all they dish out is criticism: https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/cults-groups/general-cult-groups-topics/mormonism PS, this has no reflection on you Prisonchaplain. You seem nothing like the people criticizing Mormons just for being Mormons and although I don't know you, you definitely seem like a great and level headed person. I'm just saying that it is more than Pence or Christians who are targeted. It seems that Christians and us Mormons like to think that we are still persecuted, but when it comes down to it, we really aren't nearly treated as bad as some groups. I don't know, but when is the last time someone was killed in this country just for being LDS? I don't know the answer, but I do know that several people have been killed for being gay in recent years. Criticism is different than being killed or beaten. I guess the main thing we have to worry about when it comes to bigotry or (warranted) criticism is that we try not to do it to others and not worry so much about those doing it to us. Of course violence towards us would be a whole different topic.
  9. Well, let's first turn to the Bible Dictionary: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/aaronic-priesthood?lang=eng&letter=A Although the Aaronic Priesthood is conferred in the Church today without restriction to the lineage of Aaron, the keys of this priesthood rightly belong to the firstborn of the seed of Aaron, and in the restoration of all things the office of bishop (president of the priests) will once again be conferred on one of that lineage, as it is designated by revelation to the president of the Church (D&C 84:14–21; 107:13–17).
  10. Me neither, but I am talking about before the millennium.
  11. I am aware of Reddit, but I don't use it much, so didn't recognize it. l assume it's no big deal to you. I still don't think it's a good idea to make the public announcement and I'm not speaking of just Trump specifically. All presidents in recent decades have done the same thing. If it were me (feel free to comment), I'd leave quietly first, but not announce it to the media. I'd leave a small force to see if anyone tries anything because they think we are gone. If not after a period of time, I would leave and announce later. The media is giving away all our moves and it doesn't help that they are publically announced right away. At least that's my take. I agree with a lot of Trumps foreign policies, but not all of them. For example, I don't agree with him insulting our true allies for no reason (which he has done). This has caused a lot of bad blood. I also don't think we should have pulled out of the Iran treaty unless we knew that Iran was in violation of the treaty. Doing so sends a bad message about how the US honors treaties. Yes, but I'm talking of protecting those countries. I have no problem with the US protecting another country that shares our values from those hostile to it. I don't think we should do it for free for countries that don't share our values. And by free I'm not talking about them writing a check (see next paragraph). Also, I'm against (Trump hasn't been doing this as far as I know) groups who we know are hostile to our values even if they are the enemy of our enemy if that makes sense. That is why I was against arming the Syrian rebels during the Obama Administration. I agree, but Saudi is only our ally as long as there is something in it for them. Also, if we're going to suck up to the Saudis and support them as much as they have been, they need to make more concessions. For example, Saudi hasn't been doing enough to curb terrorism. They definitely didn't cooperate enough with the investigation after 9/11. We may disagree here, but if Saudi wants our help so much, I see no reason why they shouldn't be better with human rights. They aren't doing enough to curb things like human trafficking either. I see no problem with asking them (forcefully) about addressing some of those issues if they want our protection. Just about everyone says that, they just have different viewpoints on the best way to accomplish this. I'm not so sure about that. He has done some good, but a lot of bad too. We have already discussed several environmental issues on the other thread and we will never agree there. That's a really big one for me and my #1 criticism of Trump. Obviously we don't seem to agree on this, so let's just leave it there. Trump has a lot of potential to do a lot more good in the world. Trump has done some good things. He also has more guts than a lot of previous presidents. He has also done a lot of things that I would consider damaging to our country and to the world. He has insulted a lot of our allies publically for no good reason. The general population in many of the countries that do share our values has become less trusting of the USA and doesn't look up to us anymore. To me, this is a big thing, especially since I can see it in person. In most of the world, the perception of the US has become much more negative since Trump took office. This is especially in countries that mostly share our values. This isn't a matter of "I wish they would like us" or "I wish we were more popular", but I think it is important that people look at us and a beacon of hope and freedom and trust us to be a world leader. Obama was actually good at this (even if you hate him-or his policies). Although a lot of the Republicans didn't admit this and tried to make it look like the US wasn't respected under Obama, they were. In most other countries, there was a lot more respect towards the US when Obama was in office. I would see murals of our president painted on buildings and one country even changed the name of their highest mountain to Mount Obama. I would hear a lot of positive comments towards our country and president. Thus far while travelling, I have heard almost all negative comments (in countries that are our allies and who share our values) towards our country) and instead of painting and murals, I see a bunch of "Stop Trump" bumper stickers. Perhaps you can try to explain this away by saying they are just jealous or that they just want to take advantage of the US, but this isn't the case. There are countries that have a higher perception of the US under Trump, but they are in the minority and most don't share our values and are not our allies. If Trump was doing so much good in the world, why do the majority of our allies have such a negative perception of him? This may not seem like a big deal to you, but I think it is. The US and the world needs allies that support freedom. Trump has a lot of potential and has the guts to do a lot of good. He seems more interested in insulting others and swinging his ego around though. Also, as mentioned it isn't a good idea to pull out of treaties that were just negotiated unless the other side is known to break a treaty. I think this was a big mistake unless we could show that Iran was in violation of the treaty. I wonder if those who were so against the treaty actually read it? PS, although I may disagree with some of Trumps foreign policies, I do not think he is corrupt because of them. I consider Trump corrupt for other reasons, such as appointing lobbyists to his cabinets that obviously have a conflict of interest. It has nothing to do with foreign policy. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Anyway, one thing I don't like about Trump or any of the presidents in recent decades is that they all seem to forget that they aren't just the president of the party that they belong to. Trump and Obama both were or are president to all Americans, including the roughly half of those who didn't vote for them. Obama and even more so, Trump seems to forget this. Obama and even more, Trump don't seem to care at all about the ~1/2 of Americans that didn't vote for them. To me this isn't right and is why I dislike political parties so much. It seems like the party only cares about keeping itself in power. You are right that a lot of Democrats will complain about everything Trump does, even if it is a good idea, but the reverse is true too. It is my opinion that the biggest threat to this country isn't Trump (or Obama), or any individual, it is partisanship. Partisan ship is what is preventing this country from getting on the right track. It won't happen, but I'd be happy if both parties would be done away with altogether. It is my opinion that sometime in the upcoming future that one of the two major parties is going to fracture in a big way. Both parties are pushing out independents and moderates. The Democrats may even be doing this more than the Republicans so they might be the first party to fracture. More and more the Democrats are moving far enough left that they are really isolating the moderates. The moderates are having more of a problem in supporting a Democratic candidate because they are becoming too far left. The same is true of the Republicans too (but on the opposite end), but perhaps not quite as much at this point in time than the Democrats. Time will tell, but that's my own prediction.
  12. Scott

    Changing skin color

    There is a big difference. Anyone is welcome into our meetinghouses, but to be a member in good standing and to have a church calling, those who have same gender attraction are to stay away from homosexual sex acts. Also, if they partake in those activities they can lose their membership in the Church. Do you know what the KKK believes? It isn't a matter of saying that a certain person deserves to be bullied; the KKK's believe that this country should be "purified" from blacks, minorities, race mixing, homosexuals, etc. The KKK has shrunk in numbers so there aren't many left, but they don't exactly try to accomplish their goals peacefully. So, while a KKK member might be welcome to visit our meeting house, I doubt that now days they would be allowed membership in our Church.
  13. Any idea why they voted against it? Maybe he is considering another shot at president; I don't know. It's more than the polls when it comes to Romney. He still needs to feel morally superior and wants his base to know that. At least that's my take. I actually liked a lot of things Romney did, but to me he came off as a fake, if that makes sense. I thought the same about Hillary. ? It seems to me that we do agree on government transparency. As far as I can tell it is 100% as far as that goes. I don't think it is no big deal; I just don't view Trump as a type of savior (to the country) that you seem to think he is. I also don't consider him to be trustworthy. My own viewpoint is that I will support Trump in things like government transparency, but I still think a lot of the things he does is harming this country. As far as the transparency goes, it is a big deal. As I said, if Trump really can make the government transparent, I will support him on this. And you.
  14. I said that because I don't know. I don't know anything about that website at this time, other than what you posted, but would be willing to look into it and learn more. Certainly this is better than accepting things blindly, no? I just meant that I don't know much about that website at this time. I do know that that kind of thing (mentioned in your screenshot) really does happen though. Is Trump unclassifying documents more that previous presidents? (This is a question, not an argument). Because he feels that the mission there is accomplished. I don't really disagree with Trump in this regard. The Syrian War was a spillover from the Iraq War. We shouldn't have been there in the first place. Also, I'm not saying that Assad is the good guy, but he really hasn't done anything to the US and the alternative is worse. A lot of the rebels who we have been supporting aren't saints either. Russia and the US have just been prolonging the war by arming and supporting opposite sides, but in this case neither side is really "the good guys" if that makes sense. One thing I do disagree with Trump on (and Obama too) is that we shouldn't publically announce our withdrawal dates. That just means that ISIS or whoever can lie low until we withdrawal. I'm all for government transparency, but with military withdrawals, is it really a good idea to let the world know of the date in advance that we are withdrawing? Military intelligence that is depended on our safety is the only thing concerning government that I think might not have to be transparent. In recent decades we have been giving away all of our moves to the enemy in advance via the media. What happened to "Loose Lips Sink Ships"?. It is as applicable now than it was during WWII, at least in my opinion. That's a good question. Turkey views many of the Kurds and being prone to joining extremist and terrorists groups. If Turkey could get away with it, they would probably expel the Kurds from the country. So, what's your answer to the question; Why does he say Turkey can protect the Kurds? This doesn't have anything to do with Trump, but is noteworthy from a historical standpoint. For years, the US armed extremist groups and factions to fight the communists. Now things have come full circle. The US has been arming and supporting communists groups (of which are many of the Kurdish leaders are) to fight the extremists. Because he doesn't want to get into a war over it (and I agree with him). That said though, I don't think the Saudi leaders are trustworthy. We give way to much support to the Saudis (and I'm not speaking of Trump here, but dating back decades). The truth is that the Saudis are only our allies when they have something to gain from it. They really don't share most of our values. Although some things have improved, they are really bad with things like personal freedom. I think we should help protect those that share our values, and with Saudi Arabia we view them as a stable country in the region, but the Saudis really should make more concessions if they want our protection. Feel free to disagree or agree. We already discussed this at length, but he is doing it for money and economic gain. Here is where we disagree, but we already hashed this out at length on another thread. I agree that we should become more energy independent, but not in the same way that Trump or you do. We already discussed that though. The short answer is that Trump expects loyalty and Trump will fire anyone who he thinks is disloyal to him.