Jump to content

The Nehor

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by The Nehor

  1. 9 hours ago, smac97 said:

    Again, a Columbian drug load, Pablo Escobar, was famed for his purported philanthropy. But since those efforts (building schools, football fields, etc.) were apparently intended to curry favor amongst the poor of Columbia so as to grease the skids of his drug cartel, I do not think those actions were "good."

    I would say that is more cynical than grudging. To go back to the child learning to share that is the equivalent of the child choosing to share because the child thinks it will win brownie points with the parents they can use as a weapon against other siblings and to secure a larger allowance.

  2. 7 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

    So, what women are complaining?  What placement families are complaining?  You've resorted to insults; I have no skin in the game at all.  I could be wrong and am willing to admit it. 

    The treaty restrictions don't mean anything to me.  Malum prohibitum laws are merely examples of an oppressive government being goaded by other licensed adoption agencies to reduce compensation.  Do you know that barbers and beauticians have to have licenses?  Why?  Adoption agencies are in the same boat.  

    I sort of mumble on various topics, but I want to know what women have complained and what placement families have complained.  Is there one you can identify?

    The people you harangue for not publicly speaking out probably speak little to no English, were recently liberated from fa;we imprisonment,, and the prosecutor has probably asked them not to comment to the press. Their silence is not indicative of anything.

    You can hold US treaties in contempt but they are law. It is amazing you take this case which shows an attorney in complete contempt for law and basic humanity that might ave been prevented by more oversight and try to twist it into a complaint that there is too much oversight. Do you go to the memorials for victims of a mass shooting with a bullhorn and use that opportunity to call for looser gun control laws? Using this incident as a soapbox to rail against regulation of adoptions is pretty equivalent. 

    Your tangent about barbers is inane. Barbers do not transfer legal rights and responsibilities regarding children. It is regulated for a reason. To protect children and birth parents and to prevent human trafficking. If a barber was using a chainsaw to cut hair would you use that opportunity to complain about barber schooling and licensing? Also, the requirements for licensing in those fields are set at the state level so they vary considerably. Same with adoption law though contempt of US treaties with other nations is, of course, illegal no matter what the state says.

    If the women had complained we would not know it.  They would be working with the prosecutor and federal agencies. Of course the placement families do not complain. They got what they wanted. This predator was not trying to rob the adopters probably because they have more knowledge of their rights, speak the local language, and could easily turn the law onto him. No, he instead exploited the vulnerable as such Mahanites often tend to do.

    • Like 2

  3. To all those still defending this cretinous creep I am just going to leave this here:


    Someone please come back whingeing about how this is unfair and government overreach and how he is persecuted. I dare you.

    Padlocks on the outsides of the bedrooms the women were staying in to keep them in. Locks to keep them in the basement too. Garbage piled up outside. At least if there was a fire there would be no one surviving to testify.

    And we get this line from an adopter: “He is a good man and has done a lot of good to help adoptive families.” The self-absorption is disgusting. He could not be a bad person because he got me what I want! That he did that by exploiting others is irrelevant. Lock the slave-running scum in the bedroom of one of those houses and toss in a match.

    • Like 1

  4. 1 hour ago, Ahab said:

    I would still admit they are multiplying and replenishing the earth if children result from those actions.  They're not going about it the right way, of course, since they are not married and not consenting adults. But if the only standard for doing good is that some good arises out of an action, regardless of how that good gets done.. a baby being born, in this example we were asked about... then the argument would seem to be that the end result... some good being accomplished... is all that really matters.

    You can now pick apart that argument and show how it is wrong, if you think it is wrong, if you want to.

    No, I am completely on board with your “rape is an ultimate good” logic. Definitely. No thinking that is horrific or terrifying at all.

  5. 2 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

    My brother lives in Texas, for the last 40+ years, save 4 years while serving in Germany while in the Army, plus 3 years in Leavenworth. Sadly his 20 year career, which was also his goal, got cut short, when he stole money from one of his men, to gamble, so that lead to a dishonorable discharge, and 3 years in prison. So, Texas may be a deal breaker. Since my Mother’s death, he felt like we should have gotten more money, as he still has a gambling problem, and now he hates my Sister and I with a passion. But, I never knew you were from, or lived in Texas. So, which is it, you live in Texas, or actually from Texas? If so, from what part of Texas? I still love my brother, and wish things were different, but he just hates me so much now. He lives in Trinity Texas, about 60-70 miles North of Houston. But, when it comes to filling callings, and magnifying their callings, we all do so, to a fault, if there is such a thing when it comes to the service of the Lord. I tried teaching all my children, by the three ways a Bishop of mine once told me, early on in my membership. He told me that “children learn in three ways, by example, by example, and by example”. So, this is how I taught when it came to Church Service, and when it came to teaching them, as did my Father, a “Work Ethic”. Thankfully, they are all hard working, and my sons are great providers for their families. Each who pursued secondary education, paying their way as much as possible. A couple did so, with the aide of some students loans, but most of the time by working, while attending school. They would allow us to help out some, but just wanted to do it on their own. Sorry, just a proud Father and Papa, I just love them all, so very much! I also understand their disappointment as of late, having grown up in a Church where service, even beyond HT & VT, or MA, was not only required, but also expected. 

    I live there. I am originally from California.

    • Like 1

  6. 21 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

    If I was a parent in your stake I'd be pushing back (gently) on this.  Home centered/church supported is great and all, but this sounds like a like too much church support.

    There has already been pushback. I told my Bishop about the handbook yesterday. I think he is meeting with stake president this week so hopefully it will he passed on.

    • Like 1

  7. Just now, rockpond said:

    Here is the full text of 16.13:

    16.13  Children of a Parent Living in a Same-Gender Relationship
    A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may not receive a name and a blessing.
    A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may be baptized and confirmed, ordained, or recommended for missionary service only as follows:
    A mission president or a stake president may request approval from the Office of the First Presidency to baptize and confirm, ordain, or recommend missionary service for a child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship when he is satisfied by personal interviews that both of the following requirements are met:
    1. The child accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the Church, and specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage.
    2. The child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage.
    (See First Presidency letter, November 13, 2015.)

    It still has the "disavow" line (both requirements 1 and 2 must be met).

    It is identical to the May 2019 revision and the original Nov 2015 version (except for the link to the 13-Nov-2015 FP letter).


    Oh yeah, I should not have skimmed it while trying to train a pet. You are right. Ignore my deluded comment.

  8. 9 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

    I guess not leave “us” behind, but leave our “ideas”, behind. Maybe trying to slim down the heard, and build faster, more trim Church that appeals to a more fast paced world. There was a time, when every adult in my family at Sunday dinner had a calling, and that was eight adults, now only two, and they have gotten word that maybe none will. This is what once defined us as a Church, one filled with those who served, not just those who showed up. I grew up in a Church where there were only Pastors and Deacons, and everyone were spectators. The point for me is moot, I can’t be counted on to serve anyone. But service, is what makes men and women mighty. 


    • Like 1

  9. 37 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

    Are there really people out there who think that only LDS people are capable of doing good things? Such a weird question. God created a very big world and we are very tiny part of it. 🌍

    They can be good but they cannot be godly. Then again, most members are not godly and a sad number are not even good. :( 

  10. 2 hours ago, Ahab said:

    The command is to multiply and replenish the earth.  Are they doing that?  Yes.  Are they doing it the right way?  Well, the non-LDS people in a polygamous marriage are married, presumably by some law of the land. And we are talking about a man having sex with a woman, otherwise there would be no children if it was a same sex marriage. So I would say that any married couple that reproduce themselves are doing what God has commanded regarding multiplying and replenishing the earth.

    Your question about unmarried people having children is something different than what I was talking about.   They are producing children so they are multiplying and replenishing the earth, which is what God commanded Adam and Eve to do.  But Adam and Eve were married and an unmarried couple is not.  One is doing it God's way and the other couple isn't, I'd say. even though both couples are multiplying and replenishing the earth.

    Fornicators, adulterers, and rapists also multiply and replenish the earth. You sure you want to use that as your golden standard?

  11. 3 hours ago, pogi said:

    My Stake just had a "special" Stake Conference (we just had stake conference not long ago and they announced another "special" one) in which Elder Neil Anderson spoke.  Saturday night, only women were invited (I thought that was interesting, I've never seen that before).  In that women's session, Elder Anderson mentioned that he, Elder Christofferson, and one other apostle (can't remember which one) are currently working on a "simplified" handbook that will be available to all members.  It sounds like they are doing away with the two volume handbook and will be simplifying both volumes into one version available to all.  Perhaps changes to the policy will be seen in the version they are currently working on.  

    Interesting. Are you sure they are doing away with the dual model with this change or is it more a plan to move a lot of Handbook 1 into Handbook 2 and leave only a few things more semi-confidential? I am not advocating for either but I am curious.

    Also, when does Handbook 0 (the one the Apostles and Seventies have) go public?

  12. 46 minutes ago, Fether said:

    Do you have links to both copies?

    I just read it and I did not notice any changes. Well, maybe one but I could be misremembering. I thought that to be baptized after growing up with a parent in a single gender relationship you had to specifically disavow that kind of relationship in order to be baptized even when you are of legal age but now not. You still do if you are still a minor getting an exception. Then again I could be remembering incorrectly.

  13. 37 minutes ago, Calm said:

    Maybe they need to get the language cleared in multiple languages and legally vetted?  I have no clue why that would be since new language would likely be less legally problematic I would guess, but can’t think of any other reason they wouldn’t change it.

    Could be. There have also previously been chain updates over several months where they change a lot in sequence over multiple months ( I think I remember a slew of them in 2017) and there are also delays. This revision is listed as October and I can tell you it was not posted last week. I have been checking for something on a weekly basis.

    In brighter news after my Stake President was trying to push Ward Youth Councils for every week the new handbook says it is usually a monthly meeting. Now to push back against the powers that be!  :vader: 

    • Like 2

  14. 1 hour ago, pogi said:

    Hey, my grandfather benefited greatly from prohibition as the owner of a speakeasy.  He started out as a poor Greek runaway immigrant miner,  to gaining some real wealth and power as the owner of a speakeasy in Park City, UT.  See, it was good for some!

    As a fan of this game (I won a mini-tournament of it once) I can see the allure:


  15. 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

    Thank you. I didn’t know all this. I’m afraid I’ve been force-fed the myth all my life. 

    I apologize if I came across as insulting to those who had not heard it. I also got it most of my life and then started reading up on it and it really did have a positive effect on the whole.

    1 hour ago, blarsen said:

    Don't forget smuggling and perhaps beer-brewing.  And its hard to believe that more general rural areas didn't have a sizeable drinking population; or that they would go teetotal just because of prohibition.  It would be an interesting study to dig more deeply into this subject.

    Definitely true. There were small still everywhere. The year between ratification and implementation of the Prohibition Amendment saw an amazingly large market for small private still equipment. It did still lower consumption even factoring in smuggling and illicit production.

    1 hour ago, pogi said:

    I think it is fair to point out that historians disagree on the success of prohibition.  Probably in part due to the "notoriously unreliable" statistics of the time period. 



    One thing we can say with much more reliable statistics in recent history is that prohibition, criminalization of, and war on drugs in Portugal was no where near as successful as decriminalization and investment in prevention/treatment programs.  

    So, even if prohibition did have some positive effects (I don't know if that is conclusive - it depends on who you ask - and it's not something I want to debate), we can't say that prohibition is the most effective approach.  In comparing our prohibition of drugs to Portugal's decriminalization and treatment, it seems we have something to learn from them. 

    It is still a conflicted issue though from what I have read I think the societal effects were positive. I am less sure of the effects on the individual. Freedom to choose to drink is one element I left out and I think that was the primary reason behind repeal. One big societal downside I neglected (I actually thought I mentioned it but looking back I did not) is that Prohibition caused a kind of benign contempt for law as the law was dodged. Casual law breaking can generalize. It was also disproportionately targeted at the poor. The amendment gave a year until it took effect and many wealthy built massive wine cellars and the like and got huge stockpiles which were perfectly legal as they were not manufactured or imported while illegal. This attitude was later mimicked on a smaller scale by JFK stockpiling Cuban cigars before implementing the sanctions on Cuba. There was also a xenophobic/patriotic element. In the First World War there were complaints that grains being turned into alcohol that should be sent to support the men fighting the war in Europe and many American beer distilleries were also run by German-Americans who were not riding high after the war for obvious reasons. Many of the distilleries switched to very low alcohol beer which was still legal and many switched to making ice cream. America's disproportionate love of ice cream compared to much of the rest of the world stems from this period. In World War 2 ice cream rations were serious business. Carrier air groups offered ice cream bounties for any ship that rescued a pilot from the ocean. US submarines, despite how critical space was inside, carried ice cream machines. It is a fascinating piece of American history.

    Incidentally the amendment to bring in Prohibition was the first to have a time limit for ratification. This was challenged in the Supreme Court and found constitutional. Before this a constitutional amendment approved by Congress technically waits forever for enough states to ratify. The 27th Amendment (which limited changes to congressional salaries) was actually proposed in 1789 at the same time as the Bill of Rights amendments but not enough states ratified it. In 1982 a student at UTA wrote a paper pointing out that the amendment was still "live" and could be ratified. The TA gave it a C. The student appealed and was denied. He started a letter writing campaign to state legislatures and they began ratifying the amendment. In 1983 states started ratifying and in 1992 it became law. In 2016 a formal grade change form was initiated and the paper is now an A+ paper. Part of me thinks we should do the same thing with the still "live" Child Labor Amendment. There are some amendments that would be impossible to implement now. One means nothing can federally touch slavery ever and was of questionable legality even then (can you make an amendment that is immune to the normal amendment process?) and 

    Sorry, wandered off topic.

    The issue I have is that many who want to legalize drug use see any restrictions as 'Prohibition all over again which failed' and things like taxes and restrictions as a kind of "Prohibition Lite" implying they will also fail. I would like that rhetorical weapon to die. If we legalize drugs we should do it because we determine that the individual freedom in this area is more important than the potential societal downsides and not because we throw up our hands and admit defeat because 'Prohibition' or because some people on the internet are convinced marijuana will cure everything from a paper cut to decapitation.

    I strongly believe that if we legalize we should also implement a reasonable federal tax on recreational drug purchases and that money automatically apportioned above and beyond any budget allocations to treatment programs (structured to keep it from becoming the equivalent of our ridiculous lotteries claiming they support schools and veterans and whatever). I also think we should reevaluate and adjust the federal tax on alcoholic beverages which have been stagnant since the early 90s (in fact they were cut a little a few years back) and do the same with that money. The ATF needs legislation to make the A in their name matter.

    I would also like legislation allowing the federal government to nationalize pharmaceuticals companies that do not comply with laws that require self-monitoring of drug sales or that increase prices on already existing medications beyond the rate of inflation. I do not expect it to be used but the threat would hopefully be enough.

    Anyways enough rambling.

  16. 26 minutes ago, blarsen said:

    No, not really.  But Hillary DID try to enlist Vietnam as an ally in the war on 'terrah' (the Vietnamese had enough common sense to decline the invitation), and Columbia Sportswear manufactures much of their clothing there, and the Vietnamese hosted a Miss Universe contest about 5 or so years ago.  So it's all good . . . . right?

    Nope, I looked it up. It is worse then I thought:


  17. 45 minutes ago, blarsen said:

    Perfect example of the deep-seated nature of it:  denying it exists; rather like:  "There is no devil . . . " etc.

    Using a medical term to talk about disliking someone does not make it an actual syndrome. Is CDS for Hillary also a real thing? No, it is a stupid joke only taken seriously as a real thing by idiots who think it is an effective rhetorical weapon. No offense.

    • Like 1
  • Create New...