Storm Rider

Great points. What continues to amaze me is how the Left and those who espouse its concepts, in complete ignorance, run to embrace that ignorance in order to spout drivel about Capitalism and slavery. How gullible are people? Gullible enough to remain totally ignorant as long as they can hold to their narrative about bad white man and bad Capitalism. And the idiots that dream up this malarkey reside in institutions of "higher learning" (an oxymoron if there has ever been one). They spout it long enough that others begin to believe it.

We have got to be talking past one another. I don't understand your use of the term intimately connected to any number, or all, economic systems. Company A makes soap in Europe and sells it in the United States. Company B makes cars and also sells them in the United States. Are both soap and cars intimately connected to our economic system? No. Having a product to sell does not make it intimately connected to any economic system. Selling goods are a function in economic systems. I don't understand how they are intimately connected to any of them. Using these examples given, soap and cars are sold in all economic systems; they are ubiquitous. If they are ubiquitous, I don't see how they can be intimately connected to any economic system because there is no difference other than they are sold everywhere. The mere fact that something is sold in an economic system does not make it connected to that system. If that were so, all goods would need to be identified as "connected" or "intimately connected" to all economic systems. That just does not make sense to me. I think what you might be trying to say is that the selling of slaves had a major impact on the US economy. If so, having a major impact is....having a major impact. If something is intimately connected to the system, then it must continue to exist or the system fails. That did not happen in the US or any other nation to my knowledge.

Please differentiate between how slavery was intimately connected to Capitalism while slavery flourished under monarchs....heck, every other form of economy. You seem to strain at attaching it to Capitalism when slavery functions in all forms of governments and economies. Is slavery intimately connected to all forms? If so, then there is no such thing as intimately; it is irrelevant. Slavery functions regardless of the economy or government.

Imagine looking at a building named after an individual that spent a lifetime serving others and seeing nothing but a demographic: sex and race and nationality. These people that have buildings named after them spent their entire lives in service to God and to humanity. Why can’t these individuals see that? Because their minds are infected with a very odd illness: a poisonous ideology which renders all white men as mere villains in the tragedy of European imperialism. It appears to be beyond their ability to look beyond a skin color and a moment in the entire lives of these individuals and see nothing but what offends their hypersensitivity.

I don't think the form of economy has anything to do with slavery. Slavery has always existed and continues to exist to this day. Capitalism has nothing to do with it. Slavery exists - full stop.

You are assuming that our spiritual beings will have no memory restored of our existence prior to mortality. I think that might be a weakness; I have always assumed that all that we have learned will be ours again both from the pre-existence and our mortal probation.

I was addressing the time period mentioned above with the 116 pages that went missing.

I have a few friends that are LDS and also Masons and have known them for over 40 years. Yet, simply because I know them should not be an indication of my understanding or knowledge of Masonry; that would be a faulty assumption. I suspect the same for Joseph. He may have known Masons, but that relationship should not cause one to assume he had any knowledge or degree of understanding of Masonry at that point.

You seem to posit that humans naturally destroy things; it is a default position. The only thing that prevents humans from destroying things is if value is placed on the item. I don't think destruction of "things" is the default position for humanity. For the most part, individuals value things and are ambivalent about most things of others....unless greed is in play, but that is a different topic. I believe hate is an active emotion. When we hate that which is not ours, that which we do not believe, or that which we do not value, then it motivates us to act, to destroy, to obliterate. I think of the two giant Buddha figures were destroyed by gunfire and canon fire by Muslims. They did not destroy them simply because they did not value them. They destroyed them for a host of reasons; they were haram within Islam being first among them.

I guess those conventions did nothing to save or penalize those that destroyed, burned, and/or desecrated Christian churches in the Middle East. But, I am glad you saw them.

It is strictly a cultural position within the Church. There is no doctrine that supports or negates the wearing of a cross.

Did you by chance look at all the Christian churches Egypt, Iraq, and other locations throughout the Middle East. The world cries when a mosque and Muslims are attacked and the mainstream media is quiet as a church mouse when it is a Christian church attacked or destroyed by Muslims. The St. Serra statues were not toppled and vandalized by disgruntled church members. These were not church members but others attacking Christian symbols. I am not sure that just because the vandalism was done by individuals of other faiths has to do with it....other than it was an attack on Christianity.

I have never recognized any of your comments to fall within the parameters of acting or being an anti-Mormon. The difference for me is not about disagreement about theology, doctrine, etc., but an anti-Mormon is committed to tear down Mormonism at all cost. It is a world of extremes without any gray at all. For example, within Catholicism it is clear that Catholics do not recognize our baptism. That is not anti-Mormon, but a position resulting from differences in perception on our beliefs. Ed Decker simply lies about what we believe and when corrected he ignores all comments contrary to his position on our beliefs. There is a degree of deceit involved.

Nantes cathedral (in France) was also recently set on fire also. I see a generally hostile environment in the US when it comes to religion of any kind. This is evidenced by the vandalism of church/religious buildings, statuary, and symbols. I am a pessimist when it comes to this topic and don't see it ameliorating any time soon. Quite the opposite, I see it getting worse.

If I recall correctly, one officer immediately attempted to go to his aid and another officer held him back. I did not understand that action.