• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

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

dellme's Achievements

  1. No, I understand. I'm not trying to picks fights either, just trying to wake people up. So I totally agree with wanting to protect people's rights and I do not in general like a law like this. However, one of the things that is deeply concerning is the religious idea within Islam that a woman who is not fully covered is sexually available. Denmark banned the burqa and the nigab NOT the hijab. Which means that Islamic woman can still wear religious clothing, just not full cloak as seen in countries like Egypt, Afghanistan, etc. In countries like Denmark and the EU, white, western, non Islamic women are having serious problems as Islamic men think they can take advantage of them b/c they aren't fully cloaked like their Islamic women. As seen in the uk article linked, these people think they can take advantage of women b/c they aren't fully cloaked, but they don't take advantage of their own women b/c their Muslim and they are fully cloaked. So what do you do as a country when you have this massive problem, i.e. the native women of your country are being raped and pillaged by immigrants? (Sidenote: hmm, isn't that what conquering invaders used to do to women in the old days-rape and pillage??) Well, a smart country would stop the immigration from those nations (which Denmark can't do b/c it is part of the EU), and then severely punish anyone who commits said crime. So closing your borders is off the table, so what do you do? You ban the burqa and nigab to do 2 things, one make it clear that your country will not tolerate this barbarian activity and is not friendly to it and then you do it to also level the playing field so to speak. If it's your belief you can rape western women b/c they don't wear the burga and the nigab, you make is so no one does. Like I said before, it's survival. The thing is most people think that "racism or xenophobia", etc. come about b/c someone doesn't believe or look like you do-at that's totally false. It comes about b/c people ACT differently. And Muslims as a group when they have political power act differently than non-Muslims. Out of all religions, you'd think Mormons would get this the best-but unfortunately we have some sort of persecution complex that won't allow us to see the world as it really is. For LDS, moving out west was the BEST thing to happen, it provided a secluded area where we could practice without any intrusion from the outside and it worked pretty well. The reason why LDS aren't persecuted nearly as much now as before is b/c as a religion we've assimilated into the broader culture-we are still different but by and large we look like, act like, a significant portion of the rest of the population. Even our beliefs have changed in order to assimilate into the broader culture.
  2. That's great, what percentage are Muslim? 1%, 2%, 10%? It's all great to be egalitarian when those who are very different than you comprise a relatively small part of the population. When the scales start to get a little more even, then it don't look so good. When the percentage of the Muslim population was a couple of percent in the EU no big deal, now that they have 5,6,7,8%-yeah it's a big deal. So sure, low Muslim population percentage-wise isn't going to be a problem, but if it climbs to a significant percentage, yeah it will be a big deal.
  3. Yes Muslim, Mormons, Christians all claim Prophets, all claim a higher power God, but that's about where it ends. Muslims have the Five Pillars. We don't have 5 pillars, we have the 10 Commandments. Seriously, the fundamental basis of Judeo Christian belief is the 10 Commandments, which Muslim don't have! Sure there are similarities in things like Charity and Prayer, etc. But fundamentally the highest values of Christianity are found in the 10 Commandments, the highest values of Islam is find in the 5 pillars. How anyone can claim Mormons are closer to Muslims than Christians, when the underlying value structure of what we hold most dear is totally different, is beyond me. Are there similarities? Of course, all religions have similarities among them that should be self-evident. But there are way, way more differences than there are similarities. Right, there is a difference in teachings and what is valued, b/c not all teachings have the same value. And the underlying basis of LDS belief is based upon the 10 Commandments, not the 5 Pillars. We have more in similar to Jews than with Muslims.
  4. Again I'm not going to read an academic's papers when he so CLEARLY get's wrong Paris. Did he go to Chapelle-Pajol district? No he did not. I don't hold weight to ANY of his articles if the FIRST article I read talks about how Paris is just fine and there are no problems, when I have an article written in French, explaining yes, yes there are problems. No IF he went to Chapelle-Pajol and did research and said, well you know the French article is really off-base, then I could say okay at least he is serious about research. But he didn't, which plainly tells me HE IS NOT SERIOUS about really figuring out this issue, all he is serious about is political correctness and carry water. And therefore I'm not going to waste my time, reading his academic trash-when he clearly didn't even address correctly Paris.
  5. Personal attack? Because I said you stick your head in the sand? You want to engage but not engage. You don't address any of the articles, you want to ignore the proof of what is going on in Europe-that is by definition sticking your head in the sand-that's not a personal attack that's a figure of speech. I have not in any way shape or form called you a name and I'm not nit-picking. You are certainly fine to call me out if you think I cross the line; but the hypocrisy is quite astounding b/c if I have just now crossed the line, then oh boy oh boy there is quite a LOT of #3 and #4 that goes on here on this forum that never gets called out. I get it my viewpoint is unorthodox . . .but IF the US imports a significant amount of Muslims, give it 10-15 years-you'll be saying hmm, that guy was right you know.
  6. Okay, I can not take this man seriously if he won't even GO INTO THE MUSLIM NEIGHBORHOODS in Paris. A typical academic, talk about things in academia and ignore the real-world . . .no thanks. I don't even know what the guys viewpoint is, but CLEARLY Mormons are closer to Christians b/c we are CHRISTIANS!!! To claim otherwise is utterly stupid and to completely misrepresent both Christianity, Muslims and LDS.
  7. That's it? You can't deal with an argument and the proof from news articles about the massive problem, so you stick your head in the sand and just say goodbye? Okaay then . . . that's fine, leave it to the strong who actually want to protect heritage and the traditions of western culture to defend it for you. That's totally cool.
  8. Umm, because same-sex attractions and relationships are death-literally, figuratively and spiritually. And normal attractions are life.
  9. Well first off freedom of religion has become quite the misnomer over time. In contrast to the US, European countries do not believe in freedom of speech and if you don't believe in freedom of speech you can't believe in freedom of religion. Even in the US, the history of the US is 100% Christian, each of the individual colonies was FOUNDED on religion-the only one that wasn't was Pennsylvania-ever other single state has it's own state religion. Baptists in the south, Congregationalists in the North, etc. The first amendment was to the Establishment of a federal religion and official oaths and tests of religion for office it also included the freedom to SAY what you want to say. This was later expanded to the state level-but make no mistake upon founding of the US religion was HIGHLY integrated into the government. That's great, but freedom of religion is only protected in so far as people believe it is protected-the Constitution won't do one dang thing to protect freedom of speech or religion unless the majority of people believe in freedom of religion or speech. In the US this is seen time and time and time again as the Supreme Court has made decisions only later to reverse themselves over and over again. Slavery is a prime example, FDR's federal programs in the 1930s is another one. SSM is another one. As soon as you get a significant amount of people who do not believe in freedom of speech (FS), they will elect politicians who don't believe in FS, who will put in place judges who don't believe in FS, who will eventually overturn or create new judicial proceedings against FS. This is why immigration and immigration policy is so critical to the vitality of a nation. What are the belief structures of the individuals who are immigrating to your country? If the fundamental belief structure of those immigrants is AGAINST say Freedom of Speech, then by immigrating a bunch of people with that belief system-you are literally killing your own culture. It's why up until the 1970s the US immigration policy favored heavily European nations b/c those immigrants came from a Christian background. There is such a fundamental difference between freedom of speech and immigrants from Muslim countries that it can't be reconciled without giving up freedom of speech. It's very hard for most Westerners to understand today b/c our own faith systems are so completely destroyed, we are extremely secular. What happens when you have a very devoted (and I think that's great they are so devoted) culture worm it's way into a decaying culture . . .one is going to overthrow the other. If you immigrate 30% of the middle east into your country and the people aren't assimilated, you will become like the middle east. And right now, Muslims in the EU are not assimilating-they are developing their own pockets of sub-culture. If they assimilated, great-but they aren't, hence laws like this.
  10. I don't know why it has become so taboo to be against Muslims. It seems rather quite silly to me. History is the story of civilizations who rise and fall. A civilization is comprised of a group of individuals who have a basic common set of beliefs, structures and ethics on how to operate in life. I don't want to live in a Muslim country, I want to live in a predominately Christian country, I don't want to live in a Muslim neighborhood-I want to live in a predominately Christian neighborhood-why b/c there is a shared set of ethos that accompanies that, I automatically know (or should know) where the other person stands on a lot of basic issues. I honestly fall to understand why this is so bad-I don't blame the Muslim in the least bit for wanting to live in a place that is predominately Muslim-it is the history of the world, civilizations and cultures that don't protect their own cultures eventually fade away into the dust.
  11. No it's not anti-religion. It is specifically targeted against Muslims. No other religion covers their face as such. I understand why they are doing it. In principle I disagree with laws that regulate behavior as such like this, however it is clearly a reaction over things which they have little to no control. They CAN'T control their own immigration-if they could then laws like this wouldn't exist b/c they would severely control immigration from predominately Muslim countries. As soon as someone enters the EU-by law (since they abolished passport controls), the person has free access to every single country in the EU. This is a clear law that is specifically designed to say to Muslim immigrants, WE DON'T WANT YOU HERE. They are literally trying to do everything they can to protect their own culture and to avoid being overrun by foreign nations. It really is simple demographics: I would say the estimates are under b/c the percentage of traditional european blood that are having kids is declining quite dramatically while the Muslim population tends to have lots and lots of kids. Denmark which has 5.5% of the population Muslim is CLEARLY seeing the massive problems Muslims are causing in the other UE countries and doesn't want any part of it. The US has maybe 1% of the population Muslim so the left and people in general can be very egalitarian and say oh it's just nice and fine let them all in. But that doesn't fly when you have a country like Denmark that has 4x the percentage of Muslims in their country. Right now their is ~2.5 million in the US, what would the US look like with ~10 million. It looks small, but man it factors into EVERYTHING. Look at France with 8.8% Muslims. The US and the EU is extremely secular, but Muslims in general are not-they are an extremely vibrant faith-i.e. they are in general "true" believers. What do you think happens when you have a clash of cultures as such-will they assimilate and integrate into the larger EU culture-nope, not at all. The whole political landscape changes b/c now you have people with an entirely different set of beliefs who will be voting and electing politicians. There are literally no-go zones in the EU where police don't go to enforce the law in Muslim areas. For example, it is well documented that rape of women and young boys is very common in countries like Afghanistan and in much of the Middle East-it is fool-hardy to believe those individuals can immigrate to the West and become "Westernized". What Denmark is doing is simply called survival.
  12. Well the doctrine behind Blacks not having the priesthood is actually very simple and easy-just no one wants to hear it. The doctrine is that at different points in time the Gospel or parts of the Gospel are restricted to certain groups. This doctrine that God can restrict the Gospel and the preaching or exercise of the different portions of the Gospel to different groups is plain in the scriptures. That is doctrine. The policy is the implementation of the doctrine; i.e. the implementation being that at one point Blacks were restricted from access to parts of the Gospel (in accordance with long-standing scriptural doctrine that restriction when approved or commanded by God is good) and then they were not restricted (again in accordance with the doctrine that the Gospel may or may not be restricted).
  13. Again, they may "hate" doing it, but they don't hate it enough to stop. I've also had "addictions" myself, but the scriptures tell us EXACTLY what an "addiction" is, it is love of sin over love of God. "If thy right hand offend thee, CUT IT OFF!" People in today's society are so jacked up, they think they need counselors or psychologists or whomever to fix their problems, when the honest to God answer is that ALL of the answers to life's problems are found in the scriptures. I'm sorry dude, I've had "addictions" that I've gone years, even decades with and it is nothing more and nothing less than a love of sin. I loved the sin too much to stop-oh of course I hated the guilt afterwards (we use the word shame incorrectly, anything that is punishment is now associated with shame which is total crap), the knowledge that I wasn't worthy, but when it boils right down to it- I LOVED SIN MORE THAN GOD! I've been down the road of "figuring out" the root cause and understanding the psychobabble, but honestly all of that "root cause" was really a self-delusional lie-an excuse for me to cast the blame of the "addiction" on someone else's feet. When the truth is no one made me do the addiction-I did it myself. There are no excuses, I can plainly look back now having been a changed man, having more the Light of Christ within me, and I can plainly see and it is quite obvious-it was a love of sin more than God; and that is the root cause of all harmful addictions, love of sin over love of God. The idea that people are "hooked" on drugs is utter complete bull-it really is. Yeah actually people who are "hooked" on drugs, love the drug more than they love not being on the drug. It really is that simple. I know it seems unfathomable for most people, as in why would you love doing cocaine, but yes people love it. It's that simple b/c when people stop the "addiction" no one forces them to stop-they stop of their OWN freewill and choice. If you FORCE someone into drug rehab, inevitability they will be right back at it in no time. Now the process to get the person to realize that they are better off without the "addiction" maybe a long drawn out process, but as SOON as the individual realizes that they hate the sin and love God more, they will stop. And you don't have to "fix" the thing that is causing the addiction-because for all the psychobabble about there is a deep rooted psychological cause, blah,blah, blah. It is actually very, very simple. The addiction provides much pleasure, more pleasure than the pain of the guilt afterwards, as soon as the pain of the guilt and the consequences outwards the pleasure of the moment the "addiction" goes away. The greatest lie ever told with "addictions" is the lie that an "addiction" means you can't stop when you want to. Totally false, you exactly CAN stop anytime you want to-you just have to have the force of will to do so.
  14. This IMO is false; the scriptures command us to judge-we are just not to judge unrighteous and that's a big difference. Anyone who says we shouldn't judge is teaching false doctrine b/c the scriptures clearly tell us otherwise, we are commanded not to judge unrighteously. She can clearly judge that what he is doing is against God's commandments, b/c it is! Judging is all about determining what actions are correct and what actions are incorrect Now, then there is also judgement affixed with a judge, i.e. what is the discipline or punishment affixed to such judging of actions. It's certainly not for the wife to determine what discipline should be affixed to breaking the commandments of God-that is for the Bishop to decide. More importantly though than judging is forgiveness. You can't forgive other people if you don't judge whether their actions are right or wrong. Judging and forgiveness go hand in hand you literally can't forgive someone else if you don't judge their actions! "Not judging" renders personal forgiveness of others completely dead. And that's the beauty of forgiveness, it's knowing when other people have committed wrongs (i.e. you are judging) and then forgiving them of their actions. So yes judge him that he is making incorrect choices in his life, and those choices ARE harming her (she does not have a worthy Priesthood holder in the house), but don't affix punishment or discipline to him for that (that is reserved for his Bishop) and forgive him of those choices that are harmful. No he doesn't . . .that's modern psycho-babble not based upon gospel principles. If he hates it as much as you claim, he would stop period! The fact remains that he enjoys drinking alcohol and coffee or whatever and doesn't see the need to stop. For some reason, why I don't know, we can't seem to admit in the modern world that some people enjoy sin-that is why they do it. And this is where the Bishop comes in, affixing discipline to an incorrect decision to allow the sinner to reflect upon their mistakes (sometimes that discipline is in the form of punishment sometimes it is in the form of counsel other times it is in a different form) and to become spiritually minded. Because when you boil it all down, all the 12 step programs in the world, the only one who stops the addiction is the person who has it-i.e. it is a decision or a choice that the person makes to not be "addicted". Claiming "addiction" is just a lazy-man's way of saying, "I don't want to stop right now b/c I enjoy xyz too much". Now many people are motivated more by the short-term pleasure than long-term pleasure; in their mind the short-term pleasure of that drug or whatever outweighs everything else. As soon as they see that their long-term happiness is compromised by the short-term pleasure and VALUE long-term happiness more than short-term happiness, the "addiction" will go away. The scriptures tell us so, all "addictions" are is carnally minded. Romans 8:6-10 6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God,neither indeed can be. 8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot* please God. 9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you.Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. 10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
  15. If you really want to go that route, the fact that the positions exist at all is a matter of policy not doctrine as they aren't found anywhere in the scriptures (assuming you are only counting things in the scriptures as doctrine). And considering a significant portion of "new mormons" completely ignore Paul's writings in Timothy, doctrine today more appears to be whatever "I" think is right. They are priesthood holders b/c the authorities they represent and spent time with are priesthood holders. Sometimes I really wonder if people think things through . . . in the error of #MeToo feminists within the Church and having two teachers in every class and having parents sit in on interviews with the youth are they really pining that the Secretaries and Clerks be female when these individuals will be spending significant amounts of time interacting alone with the Bishop or SP?? That is a recipe for disaster . . . le sigh.