Jump to content

JulieM

Members
  • Content count

    1,993
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,929 Excellent

About JulieM

  • Rank
    Separates Water & Dry Land

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female

Recent Profile Visitors

952 profile views
  1. And, that's why I stated earlier that I don't agree with comparing the two. But that doesn't change the fact they were both mass shootings. Of course there are a lot of similarities but more differences between the two, IMO. Thanks for your explainstion, Calm.
  2. And there were quite a few more the 4 people shot at MMM, so I'm not sure why others objected to calling it a mass shooting. This is actually kind of a bizarre discussion and I do wonder why some are objecting to acknowledging that's what it was. Maybe "mass murder" would be the discription some here would like to call the MMM? But most were shot from what I've read (not all though).
  3. Hey, I don't really agree with comparing what took place in Vegas with the MMM (or complaining about it, etc.). My point was that the MMM was definitely a "mass shooting", IMO. I'm not sure why anyone would think it wasn't when over 100 men, women and children were killed. I know some were killed by other means, but enough were murdered by being shot to rightly call it a mass shooting.
  4. It was very definitely a mass shooting, so I disagree. There were just many doing the shooting instead of just one. Definition of mass shooting: "A mass shooting is an incident involving multiple victims of firearms-related violence. ... Another unofficial definition of a mass shooting is an event involving the shooting (not necessarily resulting in death) of four or more people with no cooling-off period."
  5. Is there a middle way?

    Why is it then that you call it "unrighteousness judgement" when it's about what Joseph did, but not "unrighteousness judgement" when you judge others? It comes across as holding him to a different standard.
  6. Is there a middle way?

    I think it's their love of their family and their intense desire to be with them and not hurt them at a time that is of utmost importance to them in their lives. I don't know if it's our place to judge. You seem to justify Joseph's dishonesty and deceit for what you believe are good reasons. Maybe you can try to understand other's reasons they feel are justification for doing what they do for their loved ones. Or do you believe Joseph should be held to a lower standard because he was the Prophet?
  7. Is there a middle way?

    I love your posts, bluebell. You have such a way about you and truly exemplify one who is a follower of Christ. I can't think of another poster on this forum (ok...there is Duncan who all of us love), who is more thoughtful and less judgmental, but still states your opinion, better than you. I almost always feel better after I read your posts. Thank you. You're one of the "good ones" who just gets it and can reach both sides.
  8. That's not a good comparison. The bookstore sells no one those books. So it's not a case of discrimination. If he carried those books, but wouldn't sell them to Christians when he sold them to all of his other customers, then he'd be guilty of discrimination. Do you see the difference? That's what the baker did.
  9. Scrutinizing general conference

    I have some time at work this afternoon and I'm reading some links about the proclamation (since I plan on watching Elder Oak's talk when I get home tonight). I just read how President Packer altered one of his conference talks and took out the word "revelation" when describing the Family Proclamation": "In his original talk, Packer said the church's 1995 statement, 'The Family: A Proclamation to the World,' 'qualifies according to scriptural definition as a revelation.' That descriptive phrase has now been omitted, leaving the proclamation simply described as 'a guide that members of the church would do well to read and to follow.'" http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=50440474&itype=CMSID "Packer talk jibes with LDS stance after tweak" Any thoughts on why that was changed back then from "revelation" to "guide"? Do you think Elder Oaks is correcting that now?
  10. Scrutinizing general conference

    Thanks Scott! I am anxious to watch it and hear Elder Oak's memories of the process. Sounds like a very interesting talk and the one people are talking about. I felt more of a negative reaction (in my meeting), so it's good to hear the positive side here.
  11. Scrutinizing general conference

    I didn't hear the talk (I'm going to try to this evening as I recorded conference). But, I had a YW presidency meeting this morning and they were all taking about this one talk. The only thing they questioned or expressed was to wonder why the Prophet at the time the proclamation was presented to the church members (President Hinckley) didn't state that it was a revelation. Why did it take over 20 years to reveal that? Did Elder Oak's go into that at all?
  12. conference today

    I love her story. I couldn't watch (taping it as my mom is ill and I had to go take care of her). Did he talk about her sealing to Joseph after years of faithfulness?
  13. Mormon Discussion podcast and negativity

    Which I think is following board rules (not making it personal or about the person). And no thanks to starting a thread that's negative about Daniel Peterson. I really do try hard to not make things personal.
  14. Mormon Discussion podcast and negativity

    So I could start a thread that's critical of Dan Peterson and that would be fine as long as I'm not discussing him as a poster here? You think a thread like that wouldn't get locked?
  15. Yes, that's what I remember reading. Thanks Calm.
×