kllindley

If you scroll further down, there is more explicit discussion of what occurs during the presentation of the Endowment.

Thanks for clarifying. I would maintain that retweeting something with a Hashtag in no way means one agrees with everything associated with said hashtag. Nonetheless, I respect your right to a differing opinion.

She may be referring to this post:. But if she is, she is falsely misrepresenting what is in it.

This is a false statement. Please retract.

No. You pointed to a tweet that she retweeted that had no hashtag at all in it. You then posted other tweets from a second individuals account. This is dishonest.

Good grief, she posted a graphic of words used during General Conference! That's your basis for accusing her of retweeting DeNat material? Unbelievable!

Apparently, I am in the minority when it comes to the video retweeted by Kwaku and Ellis. I do find it distasteful. However, I also don't understand how it can possibly be perceived as a threat of violence. The bat was labeled (according to different sources) StoneXVI or This is the Show. How a production company or series of YouTube videos would inflict violence on John Dehlin is beyond me. Maybe John is actually terrified that these videos will somehow kill him. But as far as I am concerned, this is blatantly a ploy for attention. Just another example of the double standard at play.

In exactly the same way, they don't expect people to use the initialism FFAIAR. Even in your example insisting on using the initial letter every word would be DIOTCK. Most people are intelligent enough to know we don't have to represent every word in a title or name. Otherwise we should complain that people us USA rather than USOA. The list would go on and on.

You made me think of this series of articles: https://www.ldsphilosopher.com/series/who-is-truth/ Their intro says: "When asked, “How can we know the truth?” Christ answered, “I am the way, the truth, and the light.” What if we take this seriously? If we see truth as a person, instead of as a set of ideas, how does this change the way we think about our faith?" It's not exactly Rorty, but it contrasts a Hebraic view of truth with the later Hellenistic view. It's hard to wrap my head around, but it is interesting.

Previously, you did not say that you were optimistic, you made the categorical statement that there would be no lasting negative effect. That is what I was responding to. You can have the last word. I'm done.

I said:

Again, not what I said at all. You seem determined to read what you want into my posts. I've said nothing about the left not being religious or valuing religious rights. But go ahead and keep assuming what you want.

So there are no religious beliefs or practices that the left (speaking generally) find distasteful and unworthy of constitutional protection?

You continue to falsely attribute to me something I didn't say. Not cool.

I certainly did not mean to suggest that I fear pandemic restrictions becoming permanent. Looking back at what I wrote, I still don't see that. However, I apologize that I was not clearer. I am talking about people becoming more comfortable with administrative mandates and executive action in behalf of the "greater good." Even when those actions might also unfortunately clash with religious liberty. I mentioned in a later comment that especially around abortion and LGBT issues, this is already an emerging trend. I have seen legislators advocate executive action from the Biden administra