Jump to content

Bob Crockett

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,426 Excellent

1 Follower

About Bob Crockett

  • Rank
    Brings Forth Plants

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,555 profile views
  1. So you say and the appellate opinions favor you. But, as a matter of dialogue and debate, if protective legislation favors a church, why wouldn't that be a violation of the Establishment Clause? A gas station on a corner has a more difficult time operating than a church? What makes a church so special for that kind of treatment as opposed to, say, a carpet store? Applying classic libertarian thought here, religions and gun manufacturers should be placed on an equal footing with the rest of business. No favoritism. No Second Amendment. If a gun is misused in a foreseeable way, then tort law applies. If a church makes money, it pays taxes.
  2. Providing tax exemptions for religions is a violation of the First Amendment, in my view. Religions should not receive favorable treatment. Nor should charities for that matter. On the other hand, contributions to religions and charitable contributions should not be taxed as they are not "income." My view as a libertarian.
  3. Well, not really a lie but an untrue statement. Obama was a much more religious man that, say, Reagan. Roberts was a lawyer for a homosexual organization. That doesn't mean he espouses its views. I have represented many organizations with views that deviate from Mormon Christianity. Many many. At one time I took up the defense of a pornographer when my law partner representing it fell ill and then died; somebody had to take on this client. That doesn't make me one of them.
  4. This is not fair. Dr. Sorenson did so as well in a 1976 article.
  5. Not even close the same thing. Republicans beat the drum against abortion. The easy solution is to amend the constitution to overturn Roe v. Wade. Congress did that for Prohibition, and then reversed it. Congress gave blacks the right to vote by this process. Congress amended the constitution to provide for a different succession to the presidency. But they won't do that to overturn Roe v. Wade. Why not? The answer is (1) the American public would not stand for it; it wants as a general matter abortion and (2) abortion is race war against blacks and Hispanics. This article talks about the disproportionate effect abortion is having on blacks and Hispanics. Abortion is a most heinous evil. Yet, when Republicans dominated the presidency and both houses, and the state houses, was there an attempt to amend? No. There was lots of frivolous talk about a flag burning amendment, however. Republicans demand and want entrenched power, and abortion is one way to get it.
  6. No they haven't. No they aren't. No they won't. The American public won't tolerate it, for one thing.
  7. Have you seen the Republican Party promote a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe v Wade? I know I haven't. What hypocrisy. Abortion is a race war. The Republicans secretly endorse abortion; the Democrats openly endorse abortion. Now, flag burning and kneeling at football games -- there's something that gets attention!
  8. Really? I guess murder and mass shootings are justified because everybody does it.
  9. And in regard, people have their freedom of will in the Church. There were many "back-outs", families who decided not to go when the season was too late. (See David Roberts, Handcart Companies, etc. (2009).) Brigham Young was angry with Franklin D Richards for urging a late start. (Ibid.) The back-outs arrived later and many had successful lives in the valley. Roberts' book was quite hostile to the Mormons, but his hostility rather proved the point of free will, wise choices and mistakes. Folks like Roberts criticize Church leaders for claiming to be inspired, but God doesn't really treat his leaders this way. I further believe that an ox cart company leaving as late as the Martin handcart company, with novice travelers, would have had the same problems as the handcart companiesl
  10. San Francisco is one of the most beautiful, vibrant and successful cities in the world. Salt Lake City has lots of homelessness. Several of my kids and siblings live in the Bay Area. They have a most wonderful lifestyle and the Church is great.
  11. Whereas I actually agree with you, I find that many diffusionists disagree. Award-winning scientific author Charles Mann, and the author of 1491, theorizes that the Nez Perce had the Appaloosa horse before Columbus. This website discusses this theory a little. https://wildhorseeducation.org/musings-on-the-origin-of-the-horse-in-north-america/. He used to maintain a website discussing this theory in greater detail, which I have posted on this board years ago, but now I cannot find the site. It has been awhile since I studied this issue, but one of Prof. Berry Fell's students published a book of precolumbian artwork depicting horses, or so she claimed. I'm sorry I don't have the reference. Then there is the oft-cited work of Mexican cenotes, where horse finds of the American (not European) horse bones have been found in stratified diggings to a period shortly before Columbus. Critics have suggested that these finds were salted, but they were excavated by a Smithsonian archaeologist. Having said all that, I don't believe these stories but have no evidence to counter them. Such is the problem a lot of diffusion evidence. Lots of contradictions.
  12. This the best post you have ever made.
  13. It is this way in every ward. I think the Lord permits it to go on to whip the Saints for their lack of humility. The more you sit there and nurse a hostility for somebody who stands up every single month, the more you're the one in trouble. (I do the same thing.)
  14. I would also comment that Joseph Smith never said he used the seer stone. I find it remarkable that he could dictate the BoM with his face buried in his hat. I don't see it.
  • Create New...