Calm

I would say it’s quite likely there is, but not everyone feels that way. I think enough do it’s a good default assumption. There is also intense love in the more abstract sense in that someone might love their children because they are their children, more property or a continuation of oneself than people to the parent. There may be no desire to engage with the children as individuals, but a willingness to sacrifice everything for them to become what the parent wants/needs them to be (thinking of parents who work nonstop to put their kid in the best schools, etc so the kid can get a advantageous job but humiliates or disowns them if the kid quits school because of not liking the pressure or the work and wants to do something the parent sees as valueless).

No, but a simple acknowledgment of what a person has said in a way that shows one understands the point that was made while disconnecting shows the reason for the disconnect is not being dismissive or lack of understanding.

Have you read the texts with his partner, Longview, that were in the charges? They did not sound like the partner was even close to a feverish pitch, more expressing concern than inciting. No ‘wow! You struck a blow for LGBT rights!’ No reassurance he had done the right thing. Shock and disbelief instead. No idea he was going to do it. Robinson is apologetic to them even. There is no indication the partner ever advocated for violence of any kind at this point. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c99g1e0z2ero You are, imo, defaming the partner with only the evidence of them being transgender by suggesting they directly contributed to Tyler’s state of mind. Throw the book at Tyler, but at this point we shouldn’t be assuming the partner was at fault in any way any more than the spouses and children of the MMM killers were inciting their husbands and fathers to go out and kill innocents just because they were Mormon and it was Mormons who committed the killings. And what is wrong with not wanting to engage with reporters? It is not just an inconvenience. It is dangerous to put themselves out there. They have a right to their privacy, they don’t owe the public their story. Would you think it odd if Charlie Kirk’s widow, like many loved ones of victims and killers, had asked that her family’s privacy be respected and not give any statement to the press? She and Charlie made a big effort to protect their kids’ privacy in the past. I think it likely she will continue to do so. If my husband or son (my daughter won’t touch guns) went berserk and killed someone intentionally, I wouldn’t be out in public saying anything either just because people were curious about what I could say or about me personally or were demanding I justify how I could live with a monster and not know it. This young partner is going to be a target of hate and possibly violence for a long time now because of the actions of Robinson. Doing nothing that makes them more recognizable or draws more attention is very, very wise, imo. Nothing in there about it being okay to defame them though…. I don’t disagree with this if speaking of assaulting someone only for the reason of political ideology. I also don’t think it appropriate to defame someone as advocating for violence without evidence of them of them doing so as you have done with the partner. Have you considered how some might take that as justification to retaliate against the partner for Robinson’s behaviour?

Is their violence any more associated with their identity as transgender than others who have been violent whose identities are Christian, Antitheists, Republican, Democrats, etc? If the same, do you see it as reasonable for there to a legitimate concern that some members of those various communities may be dangerous both to themselves and others? If you see their violence as somehow significantly different in relation to their chosen identity, please explain why.

I think the most important point is it those things are all you say in response rather than talking about the ideas the other presented, even if only briefly.

When one is looking for something to occupy the mind, such questions/ideas are welcomed. I learned a few new things in doing the research as well.

How about “it sounds interesting and reasonable, but I am not convinced”? The word “entitled” has baggage attached to it imo and also carries the connotation imo that one is obligated to accept the other has a right to their opinion, which can imply the person isn’t all that satisfied with the situation. When that is all one says, there is no actual engagement with the points the other made. It is rather dismissive because of this imo.

Would wake me up at least in the early morning when they move, so not an option. Which is why I had the door shut. Did you get him from birth? If not, could be transferrence from another man unless it started significantly after you got him…though still could be another man, just the association in his mind took time.

Apparently Bethlehem is in the West Bank so location of his birth might give him Palestinian citizenship, but ethnicity would be Jewish. This would allow him to immigrate and apply for Israeli citizenship if he so desired. Give it a few more years and the growing Israeli settlements will possibly grow large enough to engulf the city, which would give him Israeli citizenship if birth location only mattered, not time period.

We have a transgender young woman in our ward, one of our most active, devout families, who are still active, still devout. She has socially transitioned for a couple of years now, don’t know about any medical interventions. I believe she is still attending as well, but going off of a friend’s report since it’s been awhile since I made it.

I weep over my kids’ suffering even when I know it’s only temporary. They hurt in that moment and I mourn with and for them. Sometimes unnecessary pain, pain they caused themselves seems the hardest for me to process. Why wouldn’t a loving Heavenly Father do the same? Care about all his beloved children’s suffering, no matter the cause. Why turn off the caring just because in the long run something is healed. Christ’s suffering on the cross was only temporary. Should we shrug that off as no big deal because of that?

A parade where everyone gets involved could be fun.

Depends on what you mean by God and what is meant by eternity.

We have till dusk….. Not sure where on earth that dusk matters…

Cleon….it was for political ideas Skousen had, not religious. Skousens are a big family (I had a Jewish friend in Canada who was related to them). Royal is the nephew of Cleon, an academic involved with the Book of Mormon text and is very alive. Cleon wrote the Thousand Year series, which was definitely not academic, but ended up teaching religion at BYU anyway….along with writing a lot of anti communist texts and died in 2006. Glen Beck is fond of him. I don’t know if that is the reason for his current popularity or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Skousen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Cleon_Skousen

Don’t panic if it doesn’t happen today (or is it don’t sit back and relax just yet?), apparently it could be tomorrow instead.

For anyone else who was lost in a different way… https://www.deseret.com/faith/2025/09/23/rapture-end-of-the-world-christians/ “In an interview with Centtwinz TV, an online channel, Mhlakela said he had a dream, in which he saw Jesus sitting on a throne. “I would hear him very loud and clear: ‘I am coming soon,’” he said. Jesus told him, he said, that on Sept. 23 and 24, he would come “to take my church.” It’s not the first time that people have predicted the Rapture.” (though this says the source is a pastor and I am reading elsewhere he is not)

I wish! Not opened yet for new members apparently (due to spam invasion Nemesis had to lock the board). Clear joined in 2014. Glad to see some new posting though (if they have posted before, it seems to have been in the deleted threads). Always love to meet new people…well, almost always to be accurate.

Why are you asking?

Bertel Thorvaldsen (1770–1844) was commissioned to decorate the interior with statues of Jesus Christ and the apostles; Judas Iscariot replaced by St. Paul. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Our_Lady,_Copenhagen Looking for an image as the wiki photo doesn’t look like they surround him.

Not my ward, we start at the beginning and work our way through the Hymnbook unless there are special requests. Makes it very easy for the bulletin person.

But that may be the point of the scripture…how do we respond to those whose hearts we can’t soften. Do we still have the moral right to hate them or is Christ requiring us to love even them no matter what they want to do to us? Not saying the alternative reading of us needing to love who we hate isn’t a valuable discussion as well and perhaps the intent of Jesus’ instruction was to address both.

If I am understanding correctly, the way enemy is used in the New Testament is more about how they feel about you and less about how you see them. Though of course in many ways these days whether or not someone is hostile to us depends on our own perception, as in someone who is reacting to us out of fear and not irreconcilable hatred. Or even someone who is self centered, greedy who is harming us with their actions, but it is unintentional even if uncaring…though I am not certain on this one for the more extreme cases. Someone who wants to enslave others no matter what surely is hostile to them even if not done out of hate, but greed. If so, changing how we feel about them won’t stop them being our enemies. Which makes that commandment more difficult. https://biblehub.com/greek/2190.htm

Lovely…