Jump to content

Danzo

Members
  • Posts

    3,250
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Danzo

  1. Not Being with the person you want to be with is a first world problem. I suspect most of our ancestors are going to roll their eyes when we tell them how much we suffer
  2. Sexual Identity is a relatively new concept invented by western societies. You really cannot find it in historical documents. Although all types of sexual behaviors (same sex and opposite sex) have been around since man has been around, people didn't really find it necessary to identify what "team" they were on until late 19th century. Even societies that embraced same sex activity (The Greeks were famous for it) didn't find it necessary to choose a "team". Its only in the modern era western society that is so sex obsessed where people must choose a "team". Until recently, many non western societies didn't even have a term for it.
  3. Its interesting how people just assume that the way they see things now are the way they have always been seen. Western colonialism at its finest.
  4. Pretty sure sexual identity s a human social construct that will shift as soon human society changes. Nothing eternal about it. Throughout most of time people had more important things to worry about than classifying their attractions and I am pretty sure people in the next life will have more important things to worry about as well.
  5. Well, we all have something to work on. Good luck
  6. yup We all have things we need to work on. What are you working on?
  7. I think the same question can be asked about any attribute "If Angry people are going to be changed in the next life, why fret about it here? If they will be changed why create them angry in the first plaice only to be changed later on?" "If selfish people are going to be changed in the next life, why fret about it here? If they will be changed why create them selfish in the first plaice only to be changed later on?" "If greedy people are going to be changed in the next life, why fret about it here? If they will be changed why create them greedy in the first plaice only to be changed later on?" "If murderous people are going to be changed in the next life, why fret about it here? If they will be changed why create them murderous in the first plaice only to be changed later on?" "If adulterous people are going to be changed in the next life, why fret about it here? If they will be changed why create them adulterous in the first plaice only to be changed later on?" "If lazy people are going to be changed in the next life, why fret about it here? If they will be changed why create them lazy in the first plaice only to be changed later on?"
  8. The interstate Commerce Clause has been enlarged to the point you can just about do anything with it.
  9. You were a firsthand witness? did you use to work with him or was he just an acquaintance.
  10. You may not be excusing immorality on anyone's part, but I really did see anyone encouraging him to repent either. It wasn't "He's the best we got but hopefully we can stand up to his worst tendencies and look for someone better next time" It seemed to be "We must defend him at all costs, loyalty first, who cares about principles" Its human nature to try to defend your team and criticize the other team, but the other team isn't listening to what you say anyway. It takes true courage to criticize your own team.
  11. I could understand it a little bit better if the people who choose him as the (perceived) lesser of the two evils, if they continued to criticize his immorality. The biggest problem I see is that there seems to be no loyal opposition anymore. None of his supporters that are willing to publicly say no to him. Of course it is easy for his enemies to criticize him, what takes true courage is for his supporters to be publicly critical.
  12. Unfortunately, even church members I know seem to excuse immorality when the person is on their side. Donald Trump seems to be the most recent example. Utah seems pretty supportive (although one of its senators doesn't seem to be as seduced)
  13. I agree. The more data the better Then the focus should be on todays issues and todays problems. Historical polygamy might be a red herring. I always welcome new information. My goal is a better understanding on what happened, not to defend or condemn the practice.
  14. One of the big problems in this forum and in general is the strong temptation to make a Judgement. "Polygamy Good" "Polygamy Bad" then you get to "if you think Polygamy Good, You bad person" Or "if you think Polygamy bad, You bad person" The truth is, we don't have to, and we shouldn't be in the business of judging our ancestors. They are all dead, they really don't care what our judgment is. What we can do, is study and learn about the practice, not from silly internet forums but from the people who lived it. If you give a lesson about it, it should be to help people learn how it really worked for real people. Their struggles with it. Their thoughts about it. the struggles when it started, the struggles when it was ended. Judgement kills learning. Why should I learn about something if I already know it is good (or bad). If I am studying something to learn if it was good or bad then I can stop once I have made my judgement. After the Judgment is made, any further study is just to find ammunition to support my judgement.
  15. I suspect the opposition to Thomas has everything to do with opposition to his opinions and decisions and relatively little to do with the accused behavior. Most of the people who were horrified by the alleged behavior were quite fine with William Jefferson Clinton's behavior toward women and his wife's defense of him. Then again, most of the people who were horrified by the behavior of the Clintons were just fine with Donald Trump's alleged behavior towards women. It turns out agreeing with one politically goes a long way toward being able to forgive other sins.
  16. If Stan the Jerk wants to make life miserable for someone, he already has plenty of tools. Minorities have been having the cops called on them for a long time, before Roe v Wade, during Roe v Wade, and I am sure after Dodds. This isn't going to make it different. The problem has more to do with Stan being a jerk. I feel genuine pity for the fool who dares going around trying to call woman pregnant. It's never safe to assume a woman is pregnant unless they are in labor in front of you (even then, I would ask first).
  17. Minority groups already have a tough time with the law, can't see how this will make it worse. If a prosecutor or police wants to target a minority group, they already have plenty of tools. I can't imagine a situation where some officer of the law or prosecutor is thinking "Finally I have something I can use to go after minorities. Good thing the supreme court made this decision or I would be out of luck" After all, Minorities minority groups were never oppressed before this decision.
  18. That ship already sailed a long time ago. I don't think there is anyone that could honestly say that they have not done something that a creative prosecutor could charge as a crime.
  19. I think it would be great if people followed the police officer to our meetings and wanted to join the church, but alas, it doesn't seem to have much effect on church growth in our area.
  20. I am also worried that people like you don't really understand how law works. As an experiment, why don't you call the police in Indiana to report someone having a miscarriage? Then you can report on how interested the law actually is in monitoring miscarriages.
  21. Are you referring to gender reassignment surgery?
  22. Every once in a while, A police officer, on duty and in uniform will come to sacrament meeting to worship with us. Would this present a problem?
  23. You never cut off a chicken's head as a kid?
×
×
  • Create New...