Tyme
-
Posts
343 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Tyme
-
-
You guys have to understand the city of enoch and the early saints both practiced a form of communism in the purest sense of the word. The difference between historical communism and what early saints practiced is the type of government. They practiced theocratic communism. The major communist nations you are talking about and trying to separate the church from has combined political ideology of mostly authoritarian with communism. It must be noted that communism in its purest form is an economic system not a political system.
All the quotes you shared show that the church was trying to distance itself from communism during the red scare. They needed to move far away from anything that looked like communism. It has just stuckk with the church since then.
I know it seems like a hard concept for some to grasp.
-
I gotta tell you I really love Joseph Smith Jr. He's not that far off from Jesus Christ for me. The song is too good to get rid of. It was written by W.W. Phelps who threw JS in Liberty jail. The song seems to be Phelps way of righting a wrong. If I could I'd write Praise to the Man version 2.0 about Prophet Monson.
-
2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:
Parsing by eliminating the double negs....
I [
don't] think it Satanic to [not] compel people to be charitable....True. Depending on what one means by "compel", I suppose. But true....
....but how on earth does being a Capitalist tie in?
Nope...you lost me.
Is compulsion the only evil you believe in?
Of course you're only presuming the "why" of my view that these ideologies are evil.
It's pretty naive, in my opinion, to presume that legalization of gay marriage is primarily about freedom of choice.
Even if that is the "objective" of the individuals who fought for it on the political left, that doesn't mean the underlying corruption isn't being ultimately driven by the master of sin. Injecting the "well, they're well meaning and don't intend evil" bury-ones-head-in-the-sand approach of letting evil flourish is "Satanic" too.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing...." and all that.
The homosexual agenda, whether those fighting for it know it or not, is about destroying eternal families. And it's certainly about legitimizing sin and presenting it as if it were no sin at all. It is also, most certainly, is built upon a bedrock of lies.
Yep. I'm sticking with Satanic. (Well...except that's a weird way to put it as it implies ideas like a group of caped, hooded characters chanting pseudo latin-esque phrases while they stand circling a pentagram wherein a bound virgin is about to be sacrificed..... So I'll go with "evil" as my word. I'm sticking with "evil").
Just so we're clear. I'm not making an argument that the government has no right to force by threat of guns and jails. There are things that are right to force and there are things that are wrong to force.
Leftism takes things that are wrong to force and puts them in the right to force bucket. It's the "wrong to force" part of it that makes it evil.
Let me guess you’re the arbitrator of what is right and wrong to force.
-
4 hours ago, Vort said:
...aw, shucks...
I want to apologize that was not christ like of me. It seems like you are a smart, spiritual and reasonable fella. That means you would probably be a great Bishop. I just don't understand why anybody would want to be a Bishop. When I was young I pictured my self as a leader in the church and of the free world. It was rather grandiose dreams. Now I don't want any type of leadership in anything.
-
Can I go in a hoody, running shorts and flip flops or is that frowned upon?
-
-
2 hours ago, Vort said:
Consider: Both stake presidents gave permission for the sealing to proceed, yet the OP claims ABUSE.
Seriously? ABUSE? Because the stake president wanted to make sure the young man was morally clean and worthy? "Abuse" because the fiancée's stake president gave well-meant if awkward marital/sexual advice?
At some point, people need to Grow The Heck Up and quit getting so deeply offended by stupid little things. Yes, I do mean the OP. Grow up.
To answer your question: No, there is no "one-foot-in" program that caters to those individuals who want the benefits and blessings of Church membership but don't want to actually put any effort into bettering themselves and honoring/sustaining their leaders—human beings who have jobs, spouses, children, mortgages, and all the complications and problems that go with them; human beings who make decisions and give advice, sometimes turning out to be wrong; human beings who put their pants on one leg at a time, JUST LIKE YOU.
No. If you want the benefits of membership in the kingdom of God, then BE A MEMBER OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD. That means putting your shoulder to the wheel and pushing along with everyone else. That means forgiving others their trespasses, including (perhaps especially) your leaders. Silly, meaningless crap like this? Sorry, not sorry. I have no sympathy for someone who gets what he wants and then moans about how people didn't genuflect sufficiently while serving him.
There is a place reserved for you at Church, JustCurious, but only if you're willing to accept it. Whining about an awkward moment with a stake president ten freaking years ago is not the way to accept the gift you've been offered.
You would be a real treat as a Bishop.
-
7 minutes ago, KScience said:
I am genuinely wondering what people would determine to be unnecessary and intrusive questions.
Sexual questions that go beyond have you violated the law of Chastity. The ones you hear about where the Bishop asks for details. It should be a flat, "have you violated the law of chastity." A Bishop should go no further than that.
-
8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:
The bolded above is incorrect. The Latino community did not "come out in droves" to oppose Trump on immigration. In fact, just the opposite is true. Trump got higher support from the Latino community in 2016 of 28% compared to his Republican predecessors (even before he made any achievements on Latino employment) due to his stance on immigration.
On the contrary, Bernie Sanders is toast. He is not going to be easily forgiven by his supporters when he bent the knee to Hillary - their ideological enemy. At the same time, his age is going to be primary fodder when the whiz-bangs of the Democratic Socialists is 29-year-old Alexandria and the barely-legal-aged Parkland kids. So, I doubt he can even keep the Democratic Socialists happy. Now, it's going to be a test of mettle to see if the old guard of the Democratic Party can keep their coalition from spinning out of control to the radical left.
Cory Booker is toast under 4th wave feminism. It's not even gonna need Trump to take him out. His primary opponents can easily Kavanaugh him.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/09/how-latinos-voted-in-2018-midterms/
Statistics on Latinos voting in 2018. ^^^
The only hint of truth in your second and third paragraphs is about the old guard. They are going to fight like heck. I just don't think they will crown a candidate like they did with Clinton. That means there will be a lot of candidates in the primary. There only hope is to all pick one. I don't see that happening. That leaves a straight shot for Bernie to get to the general.
I don't understand what you mean by "Kavanaugh him." Booker voted against Kavanaugh to become a Supreme Court Justice.
-
43 minutes ago, anatess2 said:
I can agree with this.. but still, he's gonna win not because of the Economy. He's gonna win because... well, if he can win against 11 very strong, experienced candidates, including Kasich, on an all-out brawl with zero political experience under his belt, he's gonna mow down anybody else trying to get him in another Primary before the Primary even starts if there is any viable opposition. I mean, he pretty much neutered Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, and Cory Booker and we haven't even started campaigns for Primaries, let alone the general. So, in my opinion, Trump is going to win 2020 primaries because he's Trump and he has 3 years worth of achievements hanging on his belt and not just because... economy. The economy can tank (most likely the corporate debt bubble if it is going to tank... or we get another 9/11) and he could still win if the Republicans coalesce against the Democrats as you have stated. Or the economy can stay on its current projections and he's going to lose because... he's Trump and the Republicans just get tired of the constant political war plaguing the nation and decide to put decorum ahead of anything else - which would be a mistake because the Democrats are not all of a sudden gonna play nice just because it's another Republican on the helm, so the only decorum that can be had is to let the Democrats run unopposed.
The interesting thing about the 2016 primaries is that Trump never had 50% of the vote until the end. That means if the other candidates would have coalesced around one candidate the odds would have been better. It could even be argued that the one against Trump would have easily won. That leaves an opening for one candidate to enter in 2020 and be the anti-trump candidate. With that said, I believe Trump has coalesced voters around him this time around. That would make it harder for the anti-trump to win. I just wouldn't count out the person who goes against Trump just yet.
As far as the economy, it is going to be a strong factor in 2020 and should have been this year. If Trump would have stuck to the economy I think the primaries would have turned out a lot different. Instead he insisted on demonizing migrants. That caused the Latino community to come out in droves. With that said, I don't think the economy necessarily means Trump is going to automatically win. You can look at 2012 as an example of that. There was something floating around that said a President has never been re-elected with the unemployment as high as it was in 2016. Well, we all know how that turned out -- Obama won a second term(Christ Christie). There are always firsts for everything.
The interesting aspect of 2020 is going to be the rise of Progressives. If Bernie Sanders wins the primary Trump doesn't stand a chance. Most people agree with what Bernie is saying. That's according to polls at least. I must say that I think polls are full of crap most of the time. The reason I'm so confident that Bernie is going to win the Democratic primary is because he is going to do it the same way Trump did. There will be like 10 candidates in the primary most with just left of center views. That means they will split the vote and Bernie will always carry about 35% of the vote. Now there is always that chance a charismatic rock star separates from the pact. If I had to choose that would be Cory Booker.
-
I agree with you Jane_Doe. That's some sage advice. The only problem is that a Bishop is different than a friend. A Bishop is somebody people in the church are taught to look up to, always have answers and be reverent towards. It's a lot harder to stand up to a Bishop than a friend. That's especially true for kids 13 and under.
-
I'm not particularly concerned about them being abused per se. My concern is them getting an intrusive line of questioning. I think even a well intentioned Bishop can ask unnecessary and intrusive questions.
-
Just now, Emmanuel Goldstein said:
It is disappointing that so many are being deceived into thinking there is something inappropriate in the interviews by Bishops and Branch Presidents. Why do so many assume that all priesthood leaders are potential deviants? If you suspect every man of evil you will reach a point where you will begin accusing everyone and you will lose the Spirit and be consumed by the world. I think President Uchtdorf said it best,
It's not that all or even most Priesthood leaders are deviants. There is that 1/100,000 chance that a Priesthood leader is an abuser. That is enough right there to necessitate changes. Like I was reminded by Antaness in another post to paraphrase, "just because somebody is a member of the church doesn't make them a good person." I'm going to add -- just because somebody is a Priesthood leader doesn't mean they won't abuse your kid.
-
3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:
Oh yes it is.
Let me guess, Harry Reid is of the devil and Obama is the anti-christ.
-
1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:
I didn't inject enough virtue signaling and impassioned pleading for it to resonate huh?
You need to watch Frozen. "Let it go"
-
2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:
Two groups believe things that mutually exclusive and one group isn't necessarily wrong?
Why no...your lack of logical consistency doesn't make my head hurt at all. Why would you ask?
I thought we were talking about transgenderism.
But why bother with consistency of logic in a discussion? Because FEELINGS, right?
Incidentally, in case you weren't aware, apparently 71.8% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
I hope that was meant as a joke. That was the most logically inconsistent post I've ever read.
-
1 minute ago, MormonGator said:
We agree-but then what's the point of having a simple talk or arguing on forums? Shouldn't we all just go away?
There are plenty of good discussions to be had on this forum. I don't think the LGBT one is spirit inducing or productive.
-
The point I'm trying to get across when discussing this with everyone is way different than you might think. My point is that this issue runs deep into peoples souls and hearts. People can't be convinced one way or the other by a simple talk or arguing on forums. That's why the churches stance on ex-communicating or not allowing members in who disagree with their stance will never work. This issue goes just as deep as religion. It's like when members say the church is true with the full conviction of their hearts. I know nothing is wrong with LGBT with the full conviction of my heart. There is nothing that will change that accept revelation from the spirit. I've received and always believed that LGBT will be solemnized in the Temple EVENTUALLY. The spirit has whispered to me that God loves all his children, wants them in the church and wants them to have joy. I also know that the Prophets are receiving revelation from God on this matter. That when the church is ready LGBT will be allowed full fellowship. I'm going to try to refrain from engaging in these discussions on this forum for that very reason. The reason is that nobody is going to change their mind. It's a fruitless endeavor. I along with 50% of the youth of the church have received whispers from the spirit that there is nothing wrong with LGBT. Then there are members who have received whispers that LGBT is of the devil and will never be allowed in the church. That doesn't mean one group is necessarily wrong. It just means we're at different stages in our discipleship. It will be interesting to see how the spirit directs each group in the future.
-
2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:
I agree with this.
Today, though, the Republican Party underwent a course correction that started with the organic formation of the TEA Party and are currently wrestling among themselves on where to put the party platform. So you got liberals to centrists to conservatives all within one Party trying to find their balance. On the other hand, the Democratic Party is desperately needing a reform as the old guard desperately tries to retain control of a political platform that has been raided by identitarians. This weakness of the old guard who still has power enough to silence the rank and file and their refusal to let go of the reigns to strengthen young leadership has left them open to a challenge by the radical leftists who are very unwise in their youth. So, as the Republican Party stretches their ideas from the radical right all the way to the center left with the majority of them amassing in the center right, the Democratic Party narrows themselves from radical left to center left with the majority of them amassing more left of center left.
Bernie Sanders is like 100 years old. I wouldn't call leftists unwise in their youth. Just because Alexandria has became prominent doesn't mean they're all young.
-
3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:
False.
Are you going to actually answer my questions:
So...what...high heels, lipstick, skirts and silky underwear?
So if I think I am...I am?
That's the rule?
Oh the possibilities!
Are high heels, lipstick, skirts and silky underwear social constructs?
The moment you answer mine.
If you want to broaden your horizons go to a gay forum and argue about LGBT. I don't claim to be an expert.
-
3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:
So...what...high heels, lipstick, skirts and silky underwear?
So if I think I am...I am?
That's the rule?
Oh the possibilities!
Are high heels, lipstick, skirts and silky underwear social constructs?
If your brain pathology shows you're man then you are. It's not like a biological male just wakes up one day and goes I want to be a female. They are or they aren't.
-
3 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:
They can ask to have a parent present. They may be unaware that this is currently an option.
She's only 8 that means she's at the will of her mom and leaders.
-
I just hate having to worry about the fact that my daughters are going to be interviewed alone repeatedly. It's really one of my main concerns for my daughters. I've heard too many horror stories.
-
2 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:
Personally speaking...yes.
For the same reason that the BSA (when it was Boy Scouts) instituted the two deep leadership program.
It protects both the child AND the adults. It protects the child as we see from abuse far more than one on one situations, but it ALSO protects the adult from false accusations by having at least another witness there.
The church has gone with this idea to the point of saying that there should be two deep leadership in all children and youth activities. However, with interviews it is still the interviewee's prerogative. I think that some of this is that an individual may feel it easier to relate things such as sins to a non-parent then a parent and will be more likely to divulge such things if in private than if a parent is present.
That said, I personally would feel more comfortable if there were at least two adults required to be present, and having it be a parent would not be something I would object to. If we believe that the Kingdom of the Lord is established with the basic unit being the family, then the parents should be the first ones turned to in these cases anyways (an opinion of mine, not necessarily shared by other members). I know that some Bishops feel similarly and when confronted with teenagers that have sinned suggest heavily that they also talk to their parents about it, but this is not necessarily a universal thing or something even a majority of Bishops do.
That's a good idea. Have at least two people present during the interviews. That way a child could still share stuff that he/she wouldn't feel comfortable sharing around parents.
Mormon vs Trump
in Current Events
Posted · Edited by Tyme
I agree the church is in favor the Constitution, against communism and for freedom. As am I. Communism and socialism aren't antithesis to freedom and the Constitution. It's an economic system that has never worked. It didn't even work when JS implemented it through God. It was a disaster. But stating that the United Order and city of enoch aren't communism-esque is you in denial. Like MormonGator said you don't want to believe it because it goes against your personal beliefs.