When Did Confusion Become a Virtue?

[Traveler]

29 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Only people who think being a President of a secular Democratic country somehow has to have the same qualifications as the Lord's Prophet would think so.  People who think the Chief Executive of a country should be chosen in the same manner as choosing the Chief Executive of a secular private enterprise especially when said country has the solid tradition of of the US Constitution limiting its government would think otherwise.

 

Well, people who think this "enterprise" should be heading in the other direction instead of the direction it is currently going would do so.  Thinking they don't have superior intelligence because they disagree with you is exactly what this thread is about.

I believe that anyone that wants to put themselves in charge or to be in a position of leadership - should be held to a higher standard than anyone else.  Generally speaking - anyone with the moral standard of a range bull - should never be trusted with anything of value to anyone.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

8 minutes ago, unixknight said:

That isn't what you said, brother.  Foolishness/wisdom is not measured by I.Q.  Also, that statement is no less arrogant just because you've narrowed its focus.

Okay - I need to understand what you are trying to communicate.  How is foolishness and wisdom not a product of intelligence?  I can understand how foolishness and wisdom play with emotions and prejudice - but I missed how such things are not directly proportional to intelligence - or at least perceivable intelligence. 

 

The Traveler

[Anddenex]

On 2/21/2019 at 10:32 AM, unixknight said:

Now, maybe I'm making a mountain out of a molehill.  Maybe my introvert brain is overanalyzing something that's really a non-issue.  But tell me this:  Haven't we all seen this done?  "I just don't see how you can think that." used not as a way to prompt a more detailed explanation, but as a way to close off argument?  Doesn't that, broadly speaking, just translate into "If your argument/views/opinion made any sense I'd be able to understand it.  But since I can't, it must be wrong."

I dunno.  Sorry for rambling.  Maybe I'm losing my mind.

My apologies for not reading through thread, which may result in me repeating what others have shared. This question is I would say is very circumstantial, and may or may not be accurate depending on how close we are to the mind, will, and voice of Christ.

I would say at times you may be accurate with the above mentioned thought. Other times, if a person has the mind of Christ in a particular realm the statement actually is simply saying this isn't the mind of Christ and if we had the mind of Christ we would even be suggesting such.

For example, temple marriage for SS. I do not see how anyone with the mind of Christ would even suggest that at some point SSM will be performed in temples. My personal understanding is irrelevant, and my personal understanding isn't why it is wrong. It is wrong because it is wrong, and the confusion is how anyone desiring the mind, will, and voice of the Lord could even suggest it.

The statement becomes accurate if the statement is based in truth, not personal judgement or opinion. Another extreme answer is abortion. I don't not know how anyone with the mind of Christ would be willing to say that an abortion within the third trimester doesn't break the commandment "Thou shalt not kill." The only leeway is that of the life of the mother, and even then, that is not 100% all the time. The will of the Lord should be sought out through much fasting and prayer. We are talking about a perfectly healthy baby and mother in this scenario.

EDIT: Secularly, the same thing. Truth is outside of ourselves. Truth is truth because it is true, not because it has any sway of anyone else's opinion. Walls are more likely to prevent or lessen any form of attack then property that doesn't have a fence/wall.

If our statement is solely based in opinion, then I think you are correct.

Edited February 25, 2019 by Anddenex

[unixknight]

 

7 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Okay - I need to understand what you are trying to communicate.  How is foolishness and wisdom not a product of intelligence?  I can understand how foolishness and wisdom play with emotions and prejudice - but I missed how such things are not directly proportional to intelligence - or at least perceivable intelligence. 

I was separating them out as a way of giving you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't actually questioning the quantitative intelligence of people who don't agree with your opinion on President Trump.  Since, by this remark, it seems you genuinely are doing so, then I'd urge you to do a little introspection, because your words are pretty disparaging against those of us who don't agree with you.

That said, your question here is a reasonable one so I'm happy to answer.

Intelligence is the ability to determine that it's raining.  Wisdom is the clarity of understanding that tells you to go inside.  The former is the ability to see the facts, the latter is making a good decision based upon personal experience, insight and objectively weighing the facts.  The former is a trait that affects perception, the latter is a trait that determines action.

6 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

My apologies for not reading through thread, which may result in me repeating what others have shared. This question is I would say is very circumstantial, and may or may not be accurate depending on how close we are to the mind, will, and voice of Christ.

I would say at times you may be accurate with the above mentioned thought. Other times, if a person has the mind of Christ in a particular realm the statement actually is simply saying this isn't the mind of Christ and if we had the mind of Christ we would even be suggesting such.

For example, temple marriage for SS. I do not see how anyone with the mind of Christ would even suggest that at some point SSM will be performed in temples. My personal understanding is irrelevant, and my personal understanding isn't why it is wrong. It is wrong because it is wrong, and the confusion is how anyone desiring the mind, will, and voice of the Lord could even suggest it.

The statement becomes accurate if the statement is based in truth, not personal judgement or opinion. Another extreme answer is abortion. I don't not know how anyone with the mind of Christ would be willing to say that an abortion within the third trimester doesn't break the commandment "Thou shalt not kill." The only leeway is that of the life of the mother, and even then, that is not 100% all the time. The will of the Lord should be sought out through much fasting and prayer. We are talking about a perfectly healthy baby and mother in this scenario.

EDIT: Secularly, the same thing. Truth is outside of ourselves. Truth is truth because it is true, not because it has any sway of anyone else's opinion. Walls are more likely to prevent or lessen any form of attack then property that doesn't have a fence/wall.

If our statement is solely based in opinion, then I think you are correct.

Exactly.  Genuine bewilderment over the apparent lack of rational thought in someone else's words or actions is one thing, and can be useful as a starting point in gaining insight into why the other person believes the way they do.  Just like you, I struggle to follow the rationale of a person who can claim to understand Church doctrine and yet promote SSM and elective abortion.  I assume it makes sense to them on some level, and I'd be interested in seeing how.

The kind of confusion I'm criticizing is the kind that's displayed as an argument in and of itself.  "Your views confuse me, therebefore you're wrong."  In the examples you provided, it would be like if we claimed that our views were more moral just because we find their views confusing.

 

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

I believe that anyone that wants to put themselves in charge or to be in a position of leadership - should be held to a higher standard than anyone else.  Generally speaking - anyone with the moral standard of a range bull - should never be trusted with anything of value to anyone.

 

The Traveler

Sure.  Higher standard of things we put on a Presidential job ad.  Trump is not Sunday School President material.  But to say that he has the moral standard of a range bull is watching too much CNN. 

Would I entrust Trump to run a Marriage Class?  No.  Would I entrust Trump to run a Scout Camp?  Yes.  Would I entrust Trump with everyone's car keys at a frat party?  Yes.  Would I entrust the preservation of the US Constitution to Trump?  You betcha.  Would I entrust Trump to manage how my taxes are spent?  Yes, even without having seen his tax returns.  Would I entrust Trump to manage rounding up drug trafickers and child traffickers?  No doubt about it.  Would I entrust the US military to Trump?  More than any other politician of the last half century.  Would I entrust Trump to have a better chance of denuclearizing North Korea than nuking North Korea?  YES YES YES.

Edited February 25, 2019 by anatess2

[anatess2]

Removed because a better answer was already given.

Edited February 25, 2019 by anatess2

[Traveler]

23 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Sure.  Higher standard of things we put on a Presidential job ad.  Trump is not Sunday School President material.  But to say that he has the moral standard of a range bull is watching too much CNN. 

Would I entrust Trump to run a Marriage Class?  No.  Would I entrust Trump to run a Scout Camp?  Yes.  Would I entrust Trump with everyone's car keys at a frat party?  Yes.  Would I entrust the preservation of the US Constitution to Trump?  You betcha.  Would I entrust Trump to manage how my taxes are spent?  Yes, even without having seen his tax returns.  Would I entrust Trump to manage rounding up drug trafickers and child traffickers?  No doubt about it.  Would I entrust the US military to Trump?  More than any other politician of the last half century.  Would I entrust Trump to have a better chance of denuclearizing North Korea than nuking North Korea?  YES YES YES.

Hmmmmm - I do not trust anyone in government office.  I believe that we should watch them like a hawk and every single mistake published to the world.  I am in 100% support of media criticism of Trump - I do not support that the media is not as critical of all elected officials.  I do not believe that bias has a place in government or the media but I also do not believe it is possible not to have bias.  I am most disappointed in loyalty to party or political alignment over country, law and citizens.  I just do not believe in a ruling class.  I do not believe anyone has a right to rule without the support of the people.  But I think our system has failed and is getting worse - both parties.  I have seen too many "good" people become rotten going into politics.  

And my biggest disappointment is that we have become so divided - with blind trust of our guys and blind hatred of the other guys.  I am tired of those that think their party does everything right and the other party does everything wrong.  But most of all I am tired of politicians that say they will represent all the people in their district and then only represent their party.  I believe the definition of prejudice is trust for those in one category  and distrust for those in a different category - so I distrust all political people equally.  If someone cannot see anything wrong with Trump and cannot see anything right with Clinton or Obama or vice versa - I believe they will be more likely to separate this country into a civil war and are more dangerous than misguided leaders that everyone knows makes mistakes and so makes it clear that leaders are not trusted and need to be held to account. 

 

The Traveler

Edited February 26, 2019 by Traveler

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Hmmmmm - I do not trust anyone in government office.  I believe that we should watch them like a hawk and every single mistake published to the world.  I am in 100% support of media criticism of Trump - I do not support that the media is not as critical of all elected officials.  I do not believe that bias has a place in government or the media but I also do not believe it is possible not to have bias.  I am most disappointed in loyalty to party or political alignment over country, law and citizens.  I just do not believe in a ruling class.  I do not believe anyone has a right to rule without the support of the people.  But I think our system has failed and is getting worse - both parties.  I have seen too many "good" people become rotten going into politics.  

And my biggest disappointment is that we have become so divided - with blind trust of our guys and blind hatred of the other guys.  I am tired of those that think their party does everything right and the other party does everything wrong.  But most of all I am tired of politicians that say they will represent all the people in their district and then only represent their party.  I believe the definition of prejudice is trust for those in one category  and distrust for those in a different category - so I distrust all political people equally.  If someone cannot see anything wrong with Trump and cannot see anything right with Clinton or Obama or vice versa - I believe they will be more likely to separate this country into a civil war and are more dangerous than misguided leaders that everyone knows makes mistakes and so makes it clear that leaders are not trusted and need to be held to account. 

 

The Traveler

 

The Traveler

You're moving the goalposts again.

You stated Trump is so immoral that anybody with room temperature IQ would know he is not fit to Preside.   Now you're changing the conversation to "I do not trust anyone in government office".

And as for your agreement of the media scrutiny on Trump while stating Trump has the morality of a range bull... may I remind you of this:

[JohnsonJones]

17 hours ago, Anddenex said:

My apologies for not reading through thread, which may result in me repeating what others have shared. This question is I would say is very circumstantial, and may or may not be accurate depending on how close we are to the mind, will, and voice of Christ.

I would say at times you may be accurate with the above mentioned thought. Other times, if a person has the mind of Christ in a particular realm the statement actually is simply saying this isn't the mind of Christ and if we had the mind of Christ we would even be suggesting such.

For example, temple marriage for SS. I do not see how anyone with the mind of Christ would even suggest that at some point SSM will be performed in temples. My personal understanding is irrelevant, and my personal understanding isn't why it is wrong. It is wrong because it is wrong, and the confusion is how anyone desiring the mind, will, and voice of the Lord could even suggest it.

The statement becomes accurate if the statement is based in truth, not personal judgement or opinion. Another extreme answer is abortion. I don't not know how anyone with the mind of Christ would be willing to say that an abortion within the third trimester doesn't break the commandment "Thou shalt not kill." The only leeway is that of the life of the mother, and even then, that is not 100% all the time. The will of the Lord should be sought out through much fasting and prayer. We are talking about a perfectly healthy baby and mother in this scenario.

EDIT: Secularly, the same thing. Truth is outside of ourselves. Truth is truth because it is true, not because it has any sway of anyone else's opinion. Walls are more likely to prevent or lessen any form of attack then property that doesn't have a fence/wall.

If our statement is solely based in opinion, then I think you are correct.

For some it's based upon the History of the church and some of it's policy changes.  It seems the Church follows popular opinion of around 30 years, or that it lags around 30 years behind US culture. 

The most obvious and easiest to point out for those who feel this way would be Blacks and the Priesthood.  Sentiment about equality has long existed but it started to get a very strong push in the early 50s (some would say the late 40s).  Some attribute this to a more equality minded group that stemmed from those who served in WW2.  Obviously, this push got stronger and more support until it's culmination in the Civil Rights Movement.

However, the LDS church did not enter in with this movement and did not have all it's members able to hold the Priesthood.  Only after many years of pressure (and the pressure started at least 20-25 years prior, and there are indications that it was HEAVILY debated under David O'Mckay starting early in his Presidency) would a SECULAR view say the Church finally relinquished to the demands of the rest of society which was about to withdraw support of certain institutions and cost the Church a LOT of money.

Using that as a jumping point people will say that it could be 20-30 years but the Church will eventually come parallel to the society that exists now.  Many would say that the ideas, morality, and way the church members culture is reflect a more late 80s and early 90s culture today within the LDS church.

Because popular culture runs around 2-3 decades behind in the Church the predictions are that the ideas that were resolved yesterday are the ones that will eventually change in the Church.  Many say that the pressure from society also eventually edges away at the Church, with other examples such as Polygamy, church meetings being unified to one block and now being shortened, and various other ideas where the secular (as opposed to the Church member) view indicates that the church is slowly acquiescing to secular pressures of the world.

That does not mean they are correct, but there is a pattern that some see.  I would say with the way the world (and the US) is going, it may actually be a point in the next few decades where the church MAY need to make a choice.  The question is when it is faced with a choice like it did with polygamy (if they had not stopped Woodruff saw that they would lose their lands, their lives, their liberty, and their freedoms and might be wiped out) will the church change it's policy on SSM or will it stick to it's guns, even if sticking to it could mean sticking to it to the bitter end.  At that point, if they choose the latter (a choice the church has never taken since the time of Joseph Smith and Brigham's exodus out West...only now there is no where else to run currently) what will happen. 

If we choose the latter it really could boil down to whether we are the Lord's chosen people and he will miraculously preserve us...or we die.

Not so extreme now, but some see that these pressures on the church and the choices needing to be made will come within the near future with the rate society is going.

[JohnsonJones]

As an addition to what I wrote above, do not think that I am one that ascribes the things that happen in the church as specifically caused by secular pressure, I do not.  I was describing how some may see it, and I do note that there have been instances where secular pressure was specifically noted (as in with polygamy where Wilford Woodruff made it clear what would have happened had they not issued the manifesto).  However, even with the case of the manifesto, as a believing LDS Saint, I also believe it was the Lord who revealed it and it was necessary that the revelation came from the Lord.  Without that revelation the Saints would have continued on with the practice, secular pressure and threats of destruction regardless.

I DO see with how society has changed that within the next 3 decades there could come a time when the Church will be faced with a similar situation as Wilford was with Polygamy.

In a mere 10 years we have seen SSM go from being something that a majority of Americans disapprove of, to being something that not only do a majority of Americans support, but also would vote for if given the chance again.  We have seen Transgender go from being seen as a disorder to something that is trying to be pushed as a mainstream idea and where Trans-women are being allowed to compete against biological women with no restrictions (I believe this is allowed in at least 17 US states today) which leads to biological women losing against these Trans-women in most physical sports when in competition against them.

We have seen a rise of atheism in the last decade and the growing power of anti-Christianity (not just against the church, but against ALL Christian churches) rising greatly to the point that the idea of Church's being taxed in the US and other such ideas becoming a more common place acceptance among the younger generation.  We see a growing hostility towards churches and a desire to force them to follow what society currently votes as equality. 

I would imagine that within the next 30 years, if it continues to increase at the pace it has the last decade, that we will see churches under siege and threat to be destroyed unless they comply with Federal regulations that force them to accept secular status quos (such as SSM and other ideas), and that a great wave of destruction will be attempted to be waged against any and ALL Christians who try to remain faithful to what the bible teaches. 

At that point, I think the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will also face these things, and if they do not change like many of the churches will (and many already have changed and would be willing to change even more), there will be a very real threat of extinction or destruction.  If what we've seen occur in the past 10 years continues in the same moral decline for another 25 or more...I can see things becoming quite bad for Christians in general.

In fact it may be similar to what was happening among the Nephites the day the Lord was born, and those times prior to his death and resurrection.  I expect I may be dead at that point (though I am pretty healthy now days and going strong, I'm at that point when health could quickly go downhill unexpectedly) but I think there are those living now who may deal with these things.  In those times it was literally the Lord preserving them at times, and it may get to that point in the future.

Edited February 26, 2019 by JohnsonJones

[Anddenex]

6 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

For some it's based upon the History of the church and some of it's policy changes.  It seems the Church follows popular opinion of around 30 years, or that it lags around 30 years behind US culture. 

The most obvious and easiest to point out for those who feel this way would be Blacks and the Priesthood.  Sentiment about equality has long existed but it started to get a very strong push in the early 50s (some would say the late 40s).  Some attribute this to a more equality minded group that stemmed from those who served in WW2.  Obviously, this push got stronger and more support until it's culmination in the Civil Rights Movement.

However, the LDS church did not enter in with this movement and did not have all it's members able to hold the Priesthood.  Only after many years of pressure (and the pressure started at least 20-25 years prior, and there are indications that it was HEAVILY debated under David O'Mckay starting early in his Presidency) would a SECULAR view say the Church finally relinquished to the demands of the rest of society which was about to withdraw support of certain institutions and cost the Church a LOT of money.

Using that as a jumping point people will say that it could be 20-30 years but the Church will eventually come parallel to the society that exists now.  Many would say that the ideas, morality, and way the church members culture is reflect a more late 80s and early 90s culture today within the LDS church.

Because popular culture runs around 2-3 decades behind in the Church the predictions are that the ideas that were resolved yesterday are the ones that will eventually change in the Church.  Many say that the pressure from society also eventually edges away at the Church, with other examples such as Polygamy, church meetings being unified to one block and now being shortened, and various other ideas where the secular (as opposed to the Church member) view indicates that the church is slowly acquiescing to secular pressures of the world.

That does not mean they are correct, but there is a pattern that some see.  I would say with the way the world (and the US) is going, it may actually be a point in the next few decades where the church MAY need to make a choice.  The question is when it is faced with a choice like it did with polygamy (if they had not stopped Woodruff saw that they would lose their lands, their lives, their liberty, and their freedoms and might be wiped out) will the church change it's policy on SSM or will it stick to it's guns, even if sticking to it could mean sticking to it to the bitter end.  At that point, if they choose the latter (a choice the church has never taken since the time of Joseph Smith and Brigham's exodus out West...only now there is no where else to run currently) what will happen. 

If we choose the latter it really could boil down to whether we are the Lord's chosen people and he will miraculously preserve us...or we die.

Not so extreme now, but some see that these pressures on the church and the choices needing to be made will come within the near future with the rate society is going.

Thanks for the thoughts, although I believe, we are talking about two different ideas. My response to the OP was regarding the statement he mentioned. What you are responding to is whether or not the Church will change specific practices.

The mind, will, and voice of God regarding SSM has already been declared. If anyone supports something outside of those parameters (commandments) it is clear they do not have the mind, will, and voice of the Lord. Any member/non-member of the Church who supports SSM in the temples (I would even say outside of temples) does not have the mind, will, and voice of the Lord (in that thing). The Lord's commandment is clear.

What I understand you are now bringing up is whether or not the Church will change a practice. The examples given I think need to be clear and understood that polygamy and the priesthood ban were practices. The priesthood ban was a practice similar to the Levites and their responsibilities and privileges that they only had. This could be removed anytime according to the will of the Lord. Polygamy is another practice, which can be initiated or removed at anytime.

With polygamy, the pressure came from the world (Mammon) and God saw the choices the world would make. If that pressure stemmed and was supported by members, well, I feel very sorry for those members when they have to stand and account their actions before the Lord as they would quickly discover -- in that thing -- how they did not have the mind, will, and voice of the Lord. We already see this is the Old Testament. The Israelites were given the mind, will, and voice of their God through their prophet. They rejected the words of the prophet, by which God said, "They have not rejected you, they have rejected me."

SSM is not the mind, the will, the voice of God. If the Church were to move forward with secular pressure -- like with having a king -- then we will face the loss of the Spirit and we will face all the consequences that come with not having the mind, the voice, and the will of God. All the people then, who said, "You see we were right, the prophet (leaders of the Church) gave in, they were wrong." They are (like the children of Israel) happily ignorant in their disobedience, and will reap the rewards of the disobedient. Sadly, those who supported the prophet and had the mind, will, and voice of God will face the same consequences temporally. Just like the righteous Nephites who had to bear with the disobedience and the destruction of their nation due to people who thought they knew better than God and his prophets. They accepted wickedness, to such a degree that they were willing to rape the daughters of the Lamanites without any remorse (Oh what a sad place to be in).

The pattern you suggest is a dangerous pattern, and one that has already shown in scripture to bring about the destruction of nations. God removes his blessing. As members, we can expect (as already mentioned in General Conference by Elder Oaks -- I believe) the hate of the world as we keep the commandments. What is more concerning is when the vitriol of the world is exhibited by covenanted members.

So, I agree the Church will have to make a stand. It may be as you said, preserve or die. In this case, the Lord will have to preserve and He will preserve. He would have to preserve because the Church will not fall as these are the last days. I am more concerned regarding the prophecies of past apostles and prophets and what they saw, not necessarily for myself but for my children.

Polygamy and Priesthood practice are very different than SSM and its acceptance in temples or even in ward buildings.

 

[Guest MormonGator]

On 2/25/2019 at 12:01 PM, unixknight said:

 Foolishness/wisdom is not measured by I.Q.  

Off topic-

Did you ever notice that no one talks about IQ, except on internet forums and Facebook? 

[Traveler]

18 hours ago, anatess2 said:

You're moving the goalposts again.

You stated Trump is so immoral that anybody with room temperature IQ would know he is not fit to Preside.   Now you're changing the conversation to "I do not trust anyone in government office".

And as for your agreement of the media scrutiny on Trump while stating Trump has the morality of a range bull... may I remind you of this:

Just because the Democrats are much more corrupt does not make the Republicans the opposite and therefore the example of what elected officials should be.   It is like dealing with a terrorists that say, "You are free to choose and pick if we execute your spouse or one of your neighborhood kids."  A recent conference talk introduced the concept between good, better and best.  That is not what we are facing with the Republicans and Trump verses the Democrats - neither are not part of the good, better and best possibilities.  They are more in line with the bad, worse and the most horrible possible.  The republicans being the bad and the democrats being the worse.   It is like justifying a particular kind of child abuse as being good for little children because it is better and more humane than feeding them to crocodiles.  Just because you can find someone doing something worse does not mean that we must accept something that is not quite as bad and call it wonderful, beautiful and what we all need to get behind and support and be beside ourselves with joy.

 

The Traveler

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, Traveler said:

The republicans being the bad and the democrats being the worse. 

Very true. If you want to get involved in politics you need to accept that it often boils down to the "least worst" option. If you (generic!) can't handle that, politics isn't for you. 

[anatess2]

32 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Just because the Democrats are much more corrupt does not make the Republicans the opposite and therefore the example of what elected officials should be.   It is like dealing with a terrorists that say, "You are free to choose and pick if we execute your spouse or one of your neighborhood kids."  A recent conference talk introduced the concept between good, better and best.  That is not what we are facing with the Republicans and Trump verses the Democrats - neither are not part of the good, better and best possibilities.  They are more in line with the bad, worse and the most horrible possible.  The republicans being the bad and the democrats being the worse.   It is like justifying a particular kind of child abuse as being good for little children because it is better and more humane than feeding them to crocodiles.  Just because you can find someone doing something worse does not mean that we must accept something that is not quite as bad and call it wonderful, beautiful and what we all need to get behind and support and be beside ourselves with joy.

 

The Traveler

We are not talking about Republicans versus Democrats.  We were talking about Trump.  And I, for one, does not support Trump because he is the "lesser of 2 evils".  I reject that premise.  I support Trump because he is the ONLY ONE that can do the job we need him to do at this point in time.

And you completely ignored the challenge to your support of the media which makes everything you said above null and void - calling Republicans and Democrats as corrupt while calling media good.

Edited February 26, 2019 by anatess2

[unixknight]

49 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

And you completely ignored the challenge to your...

I begin to detect a pattern.

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

We are not talking about Republicans versus Democrats.  We were talking about Trump.  And I, for one, does not support Trump because he is the "lesser of 2 evils".  I reject that premise.  I support Trump because he is the ONLY ONE that can do the job we need him to do at this point in time.

And you completely ignored the challenge to your support of the media which makes everything you said above null and void - calling Republicans and Democrats as corrupt while calling media good.

What I said is that the media is doing their job in being critical of everything concerning Trump - but just because they do their job with Trump does not mean that they have done their job with the Democrats.  If the media covered all politics as they do Trump I would give them a fast rating on my speedometer but since their coverage is so biased and one sided - what they get is a half-fast rating.  🙃

I intend to recognize all the good I can.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Very true. If you want to get involved in politics you need to accept that it often boils down to the "least worst" option. If you (generic!) can't handle that, politics isn't for you. 

Agreed - It would seem that in today's political climate that any hint of honesty and morality is a quality to get someone kicked out of either party.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

We are not talking about Republicans versus Democrats.  We were talking about Trump.  And I, for one, does not support Trump because he is the "lesser of 2 evils".  I reject that premise.  I support Trump because he is the ONLY ONE that can do the job we need him to do at this point in time.

According to the Book of Mormon - what qualities (morals) should our leaders have?  Who or what kind of who's should we willingly hand over the reigns of government to?  I hope you do not see Trump and Moroni (or Alma or Mosiah or King Benjamin) as cut from the same cloth.

 

The Traveler

[anatess2]

16 minutes ago, Traveler said:

What I said is that the media is doing their job in being critical of everything concerning Trump - but just because they do their job with Trump does not mean that they have done their job with the Democrats.  If the media covered all politics as they do Trump I would give them a fast rating on my speedometer but since their coverage is so biased and one sided - what they get is a half-fast rating.  🙃

I intend to recognize all the good I can.

 

The Traveler

It's one thing to be critical.  It is an ENTIRELY different thing to manufacture a crisis to base your criticism off of.  Hence, your skewed perception that Trump's morality is on par with a range bull among all the other allegations of racism, sexism, homophobia, a Russian puppet, and whatever fodder they have been giving to contribute to the latest manifestation of Trump Derangement Syndrome that has claimed several victims including a 16-year-old High School kid from Covington Catholic School who dared to wear a MAGA hat while being white and smiling at a Native American.

Edited February 26, 2019 by anatess2

[anatess2]

38 minutes ago, Traveler said:

According to the Book of Mormon - what qualities (morals) should our leaders have?  Who or what kind of who's should we willingly hand over the reigns of government to?  I hope you do not see Trump and Moroni (or Alma or Mosiah or King Benjamin) as cut from the same cloth.

 

The Traveler

And here we go again...

Okay, to make this discussion quicker...  name the people you voted for to be President including the person you voted for in 2016 and tell me why you think they are cut from the same cloth as King Benjamin.  If you don't think they're cut from the same cloth, then tell me why you think they meet the qualifications of being fit to be President and Trump does not.  And while you're at it, tell me why you think I have very low IQ.

Edited February 26, 2019 by anatess2

[Guest MormonGator]

50 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Agreed - It would seem that in today's political climate that any hint of honesty and morality is a quality to get someone kicked out of either party.

 

The Traveler

I agree, but remember that politicians have all their actions scrutinized and debated by the media and the public virtually 24/7. If that happened to any one of us (yes, you and I included) we would be made out to be immoral too. Not to mention that in the rare case we didn't make mistakes, someone would simply make things up about you. And people would believe it. 

[Traveler]

18 hours ago, anatess2 said:

And here we go again...

Okay, to make this discussion quicker...  name the people you voted for to be President including the person you voted for in 2016 and tell me why you think they are cut from the same cloth as King Benjamin.  If you don't think they're cut from the same cloth, then tell me why you think they meet the qualifications of being fit to be President and Trump does not.  And while you're at it, tell me why you think I have very low IQ.

Mostly I write in candidates.  I use to write in Mickey Mouse until I realized that it could invalidate an entire ballot.  I did vote for Romney for President.  My late father believe that the only way to have proper representation is to be involved with donations, campaigns and then to vote straight party.  The corruption in political parties concerning donations and campaigns has so frustrated me that I have renounced all political parties and am currently registered as an independent.  I have attended mass meetings both Democratic and Republican in my neighborhood - mostly to make my concerns known.  I do stay active In local politics and I have testified before the state legislature on a number of bills.  When I lived in Washington (state) I was a unpaid volunteer Lobbyists for the PTSA. As for federal politics - I have given up.  There is too much corruption (secret combinations) that I do not believe a honest person can be elected (have the funds to run) for a federal office or if somehow elected can stay true to principles - the seniority system in congress prevents any possibility of any non swamp creature able to do anything.

I believe if the truth was know about Washington DC - that the people would rise up and linch our elected officials and half (or more) of the bureaucracy - also a good chunk of our federal judges.   My only hope is that the two parties will continue to turn on each other until both are destroyed but I fear that too many citizens are getting caught up in the political hate rhetoric of one party against the other and that the country will descend into civil war first - regardless I will have not part of it beyond pointing out that immorality, narcissism and lust for power is far too rampant in both parties.  

 

The Traveler

Edited February 27, 2019 by Traveler

[anatess2]

53 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Mostly I write in candidates.  I use to write in Mickey Mouse until I realized that it could invalidate an entire ballot.  I did vote for Romney for President. 

Okay then.  So why would somebody with an IQ above room temperature think Romney should be President but Trump shouldn't?

[Traveler]

38 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Okay then.  So why would somebody with an IQ above room temperature think Romney should be President but Trump shouldn't?

Because Romney keeps his promises (marriage covenant) even when society does not think it is important.

 

The Traveler