Can Political Statements Disqualify for Callings?

[Darren10]

5 minutes ago, JulieM said:

So, do you withdraw your statements?  Or do you have sources to fulfill the CFR?

Please read what I wrote.

[JulieM]

8 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

As I told Cal, I do plan to read then new edition. I also recall that entire section on the mountain Meadow massacre being footnoted to about 6 different historians. The portion I cited was a summary previous paragraphs.

Also, I said, "a bit" vindicated, deliberately avoiding saying "completely" or even just plain old "vindicated". I stand by my words according to my source and will update accordingly.

You have supplied no sources for my CFR that back up your claim.  So do you withdraw the claim that the emigrants stole horses from the Indians? 

You stated:

"I can get exact quotes later but you are not portraying the Baker–Fancher party accurately.

....

But the Baker–Fancher Party was unrurly and even stole horses from a local native Indian tribe (I think the Utes) which meant death to the entire Indian village as horses were the primary means to gather resources including food for the tribe."

Again, CFR regarding the stolen horses.  Either supply a reference or withdraw your claim.

Edited February 14, 2017 by JulieM

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Darren10 said:

"It's their take on the evidence" - Could very well be true in Alexander's case. I cannot say for certain but I have little doubt Alexander looked at the primary sources for his book.

Alexander has a few major problems even with his 2005 sources (he probably lacked what Turley and group had as he is a great historian, imo).  One is that he claims the Paiutes were led by some men who were actually in SLC at the time meeting with BY.  Turley et. al's book has an appendix on the Indians involved, listing those who were there to the best of our knowledge and those who were reported to be there but weren't, again to the best of our knowledge....which appears to be much better than Alexander had available to him. Turley's book is known for having sources previously unknown.

Apparently few of the Paiute leaders claimed to be there were there.

Edited February 15, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

According to Walker, Turley, Leonard, Massacre at Mountain Meadows (called WTL in the future), the settlers were a mixed bag.  Some got drunk in town and angry at their treatment and according to one report WLT seems to trust boasted they had helped killed JS and other Mormons and would harm and kill "some of the citizens", including the bishop, Klingensmith.  They are reported saying they would go out to Mountain Meadows and wait there for the Feds to show up, then join them and "carry out their threats."

WLT point out the influence justification stories likely had on many reports, but appear to conclude imo there is enough consistency to see this and the following as accurate:  Nephi Johnson reported the group was "of a mixed class, some being perfect gentlemen, while others were quite boastful, and insulting, as they said they were coming back, and assist the [U.S.] army to exterminate the Mormons."  He reportedhearing Fancher "rebuke" the boasters.

Emigrants went to confront Haight as mayor, reported as drunk and cursing him and uttering threats to come out and about the army from California seizing the leaders and "every othe damn Mormon in the country." (Page 133 of WTL)

Haight got away and ordered the marshal to arrest them for drunkenness and blasphemy.  The emigrants left town without being arrested, continuing their threats including to take what they wanted, one man killing two chickens and tossing them into his wagon to show he meant it.  An older woman had a pistol waved in her face and was verbally abused.  Higbee moved to arrest him, but was refused by the man along with his companions and he backed down.

WTL makes a point that the unruly ones were in the minority and the "vast majority" of the group were peaceful.  They point out that no one was actually harmed (me:  save the chickens).  They are of the opinion it was boasting and idle threats, unfortunately taken seriously.

[Calm]

WLT, page 137 has Haight interpreting BY's policy as giving him permission to arm and otherwise supply the Indians and send them after the emigrants to "give them a brush" and take the cattle.  The area chosen was known for attacks on the local natives and attacks on them.  One is reported by WLT with the info that no one was killed though even clothing was taken.  WLT describes a recent killing (Tobin party) most likely by whites that may or may not have been ordered by Haight in an overreaction to a warning by Young of two exconvicts in the area who might take to stealing with the wrong men being killed; another possibility was they could have been killed by disgruntled former companions.  

Haight and his group planned to have the Paiutes follow the train and when a good time came, attack, kill some of the men and steal as much as possible without hurting any of the women and children. (Page 139).  Haight had Lee come from Harmony to do the convincing.  He sent other men to get in front of the train to begin the plan. The men were to find reason for an Indian attack as well as to push the train into position quickly. (140)

Samuel Knight was ordered to go get the Indians in place.  It was a much larger attack than anything done in the past by the Paiutes (page 141) and would likely take a lot of convincing.

 

[Calm]

Stuff about Lee and Haight follows, summarized for our needs as 'doesn't matter who gets killed "so long as they could blame it on the Paiutes".  Lee claimed it was meant to be "an Indian massacre" without whites involved. (Page 144)

page 145...on the Saturday, Higbee, Klingensmith, Lee, and Haight went to the Paiute camp and persuaded them to follow and then kill the emigrants, taking their property.  Saturday night it was reported the Paiute men had taken off.

Page 147 lists evidence of Indian leaders who had been in meetings with Young where he suggested they join with the Mormons (their response was they would raise grain, the Mormons could do the fighting)....so recruitment had to be local only and was about trust with the local LDS leaders.  Likely were told the Americans were intent on killing Indians whenever possible, that they had killed Mormons, their friends, as well.  Lee is reported to have pushed them with promises of plunder and promised help from the Mormons if it didn't go well.  Lee went off to gather more Indians in hopes that whites would not have to get involved, he met another group that required him to come and lead the attack though.  Page 148

Enough info I hope to demonstrate the Paiutes were not the instigators, but the tools of the whites...that their only reason for participating was they were pushed by Lee who was ordered by Haight to use them.

Also that evidence is that a small part of the emigrants were abusive, though most were peaceful.

Anything else I missed in the debate in the thread?

Edited February 15, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Darren10 said:

My understanding is that the Paiutes were ready to fight the train party. Either before actually attacking the party or right about the time their attack upon the party began, they sent for Lee, a person they could trust. Your reference makes it appear that Lee initially tried to keep them calm, is that correct? If so, what incited them to violence in the first place? To get rich off the emigrants? Rumors?

Apparently one of the recruited groups ran into Lee (while he was going to recruit others) and insisted they would only follow through on Lee, Haight, Klingensmith, and Higbee's plan to kill the emigrants if Lee were to lead them.  The Paiutes were reluctant to fight (WLT conclude this based on several things) and only did so because of their trust in the Mormons, Lee in particular.  Lee went to finish his recruitment after promising to come back and lead, which he did.  His son (son-in-law) stayed with the Paiute group to reassure them of the promise.

Lee and the others were the ones who incited them to violence in the first place, according to WLT.  Lee did not try to keep them calm (in the sense to not kill the emigrants).  Lee and the others claimed the emigrants had and were intending to kill both Mormons and Indians.  Telling them they could also take the property was part of the persuasion tactics.  (As reported in WLT as posted in my notes)

Alexander doesn't have even close to the same detail that WLT has.  It is obvious where he lacked the documentation that the later authors had.

Edited February 15, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Thanks for the research Calm.

If I remember correctly, the range war/grazing conflicts were exacerbated because there were no lines of demarcation of lands between the Indians, Mormons, and any others who may have purchased land from Mexico after US government surveyors were murdered. So any emigrants passing through with large herds would have inevitably run into some conflicts with locals who were trying to defend their grazing pastures from others, let alone emigrants passing through.

Also, there would naturally have been friction between anyone passing through and the Mormons after BY declared martial law and restricted entry into the territory.

Of course Mountain Meadows happened on September 11, so martial law wasn't even publicized until afterwards, even though it had been declared in mid-August.

Also, WLT believe the meetings with BY and others to persuade the various Indian groups to join with them, that included some incitful (is this a word?) language about the Feds coming to kill the Indians along with the Mormons were unlikely to have any impact on the incident because many meeting with BY were still in SLC, but the language used by Lee and others was essentially the same (hardly takes much effort to come up with), so the result might have not been much different.  Perhaps a little less effort needed to persuade.

 Pity Lee hadn't gone north instead of Hamblin (iirc).  Might not have happened if Lee wasn't around because the rest weren't as well known to the Paiutes and Hamblin might have not been so inclined (don't know).

[Calm]

"Furthermore, from reading this, I recall Professor Alexander distinctly teaching that it was the Paiutes who pressured the Mormons to join them to attack the Fancher party"

I think I have made it clear, but just in case...

Technically correct since Lee and Haight originally wanted the massacre to be all done by the Indians, but if I understand your comment, you mean to suggest it was the Paiutes' idea to attack the train and they pushed the Mormons to join them..which would not be accurate according to WLT.  From Alexander's revision, it would seem by 2005, he saw the Paiutes possibly influenced to follow the train to take property, not lives, by the policies of BY (something contradicted by WLT, at least in regard to the Sept 1 meeting), but there was likely no intent on their part to kill anyone.  Alexander seems in 2005 to believe it was Haight's...and maybe Lee's as well, it is not detailed enough to tell imo, though I may have missed something...idea for some of the men to be killed and then Lee developed that idea into a total massacre as he didn't see the ability to avoid 'collateral damage'.

Edited February 15, 2017 by Calm

[Darren10]

5 hours ago, JulieM said:

You have supplied no sources for my CFR that back up your claim.  So do you withdraw the claim that the emigrants stole horses from the Indians? 

You stated:

"I can get exact quotes later but you are not portraying the Baker–Fancher party accurately.

....

But the Baker–Fancher Party was unrurly and even stole horses from a local native Indian tribe (I think the Utes) which meant death to the entire Indian village as horses were the primary means to gather resources including food for the tribe."

Again, CFR regarding the stolen horses.  Either supply a reference or withdraw your claim.

Julie, chilax, girl. I trust what you are saying as well as Cal and Happy Jack. Based on that trust I fully plan to alter my position on the Fancher party but since I have not read anything myself I will not do that now. As I said before, *based on the knowledge I have had up to this point, I will NOT retract or withdraw anything. But, again I fully plan to do so in the near future, just be patient.

/And I thought I was going to get my wife angry with me tonight  

[Darren10]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Alexander has a few major problems even with his 2005 sources (he probably lacked what Turley and group had as he is a great historian, imo).  One is that he claims the Paiutes were led by some men who were actually in SLC at the time meeting with BY.  Turley et. al's book has an appendix on the Indians involved, listing those who were there to the best of our knowledge and those who were reported to be there but weren't, again to the best of our knowledge....which appears to be much better than Alexander had available to him. Turley's book is known for having sources previously unknown.

Apparently few of the Paiute leaders claimed to be there were there.

Huh, that's very interesting. 

[Darren10]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

According to Walker, Turley, Leonard, Massacre at Mountain Meadows (called WTL in the future), the settlers were a mixed bag.  Some got drunk in town and angry at their treatment and according to one report WLT seems to trust boasted they had helped killed JS and other Mormons and would harm and kill "some of the citizens", including the bishop, Klingensmith.  They are reported saying they would go out to Mountain Meadows and wait there for the Feds to show up, then join them and "carry out their threats."

WLT point out the influence justification stories likely had on many reports, but appear to conclude imo there is enough consistency to see this and the following as accurate:  Nephi Johnson reported the group was "of a mixed class, some being perfect gentlemen, while others were quite boastful, and insulting, as they said they were coming back, and assist the [U.S.] army to exterminate the Mormons."  He reportedhearing Fancher "rebuke" the boasters.

Emigrants went to confront Haight as mayor, reported as drunk and cursing him and uttering threats to come out and about the army from California seizing the leaders and "every othe damn Mormon in the country." (Page 133 of WTL)

Haight got away and ordered the marshal to arrest them for drunkenness and blasphemy.  The emigrants left town without being arrested, continuing their threats including to take what they wanted, one man killing two chickens and tossing them into his wagon to show he meant it.  An older woman had a pistol waved in her face and was verbally abused.  Higbee moved to arrest him, but was refused by the man along with his companions and he backed down.

WTL makes a point that the unruly ones were in the minority and the "vast majority" of the group were peaceful.  They point out that no one was actually harmed (me:  save the chickens).  They are of the opinion it was boasting and idle threats, unfortunately taken seriously.

Although I do not remember at all Fancher rebuking others in his party the unruliness, including promises to bring in armed Feds to kill Mormons (something Mormons were very sensative to due to very recent past history) I remember very well from Alexander's class and from his book. I remember the Fancher group being a very fine group of people overall but with troubling elements within their party. This is why I previoulsy stated that thry were gentlemenly but not all the time.

Edited February 15, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

Calm;

 

WTL most definitely put a different perspective on the massacre than did Alexander. Good stuff.

[Stargazer]

On 2/13/2017 at 6:27 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

For many years Harry Reid has been hated amongst members in my neck of the woods. Discussions of politics would inevitably decline into conversations about Reid and how he shouldn't be allowed to hold a temple recommend or even be a member of the church. Those on the right were judging Reid on his leftist ideology. But people on the left judge people on the right in similar ways. Sometimes a Democrat will judge an outspoken Republican about their stance on immigration and how it doesn't match the church's position. The political rancor intersects religion regularly and the harshness of the judgments get really tired.

I admit that...but...

Last night I was reading a Facebook post from a prominent member in my area. This person referenced a Tennessee law that removes civil liability for a motorist who hits a protestor in a street. This person called it a "Proud moment that allows someone to run over another person for blocking the road in protest". This mindset absolutely disgusts me and I am shocked that anyone, let alone a church leader, would voice approval of running protestors down.

At the risk of being a hypocrite, because I hate judging people's worthiness on their politics, I find myself really focused on whether or not I can sustain a person in leadership, or any calling, who would advocate this kind of violent behavior.

http://wearechange.org/tennessee-passes-controversial-law-allowing-drivers-injure-protesters/

Are there legitimate reasons to judge a person based on their politics and oppose them in a calling?

I kind of think not, generally.  And I am so glad that Harry Reid is no longer Senate Majority Leader -- or Minority Leader.  But as long as he can answer temple recommend questions appropriately I don't see any reason to raise any red flag about his membership or his worthiness to enter the temple or hold callings.  In fact, I'd defend his worthiness to do so.

However, I can imagine that this would change for me for a member of any of a number of groups that advocate ugly things.  Like say, KKK.  I'd vote to oppose a member of the KKK who was offered for a sustaining vote.  In ANY calling.  I would probably have grave doubts about a CPUSA member, or a member who was involved in an actual white supremacist organization (besides the KKK).  

[thesometimesaint]

Darren:

Nothing to see here; just move along right?

SEE http://fox59.com/2017/01/14/chicago-police-doj-report-details-incidents-of-excessive-force/

SEE

[JulieM]

9 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Julie, chilax, girl. I trust what you are saying as well as Cal and Happy Jack. Based on that trust I fully plan to alter my position on the Fancher party but since I have not read anything myself I will not do that now. As I said before, *based on the knowledge I have had up to this point, I will NOT retract or withdraw anything. But, again I fully plan to do so in the near future, just be patient.

Calm owns the book you claim has the statement in it regarding the emigrants stealing horses from the Indians.  She has posted that it is not in the book (that you ordered). The book is also online for you to search in for the reference.

If you don't have another reference for your claim you need withdraw it.  

It's in the Board Guidelines

"BANNED BEHAVIORS include but are not limited to:

• Refusing to provide appropriate references to support your statements"

 

Edited February 15, 2017 by JulieM

[Darren10]

4 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Darren:

Nothing to see here; just move along right?

SEE http://fox59.com/2017/01/14/chicago-police-doj-report-details-incidents-of-excessive-force/

SEE

I really do need to proof read my posts and read them in the lens of my audience. What I wanted to say is that cops do not shoot blacks because they are black which is the constant claim of Black Lives Matter. They do not seem concerned with *why* a suspect is shot, only that the suspect is black and react as if that was the reason they were shot.

Quote

A man had been walking down a residential street with a friend when officers drove up, shined a light on him, and ordered him to freeze, because he had been fidgeting with his waistband. The man ran. Three officers gave chase and began shooting as they ran. In total, the officers fired 45 rounds, including 28 rifle rounds, toward the man. Several rounds struck the man, killing him. The officers claimed the man fired at them during the pursuit. Officers found no gun on the man. Read more.

As unjustified this shooting seems to have been, where does it say he was shot because he was black? And is it too difficult for BLM to come out and say, "don't run and you won't get shot"?

Quote

A CPD officer fatally shot a fleeing, unarmed suspect in the back. The officer told investigators the suspect had turned around to point a black object. This account did not square with the location of the shooting victim’s gunshot wounds and appeared contrary to video footage that showed the suspect running away from the officer. Again, IPRA (Independent Police Review Authority) accepted the officer’s account, despite the conflicting evidence. IPRA’s final report of the incident did not mention the existence of the video. Read more.

Again, where does it say the man was shot because he was black? Also, again, why is advising people not to flee from and officer bad?

I am NOT justifying the shootings mentioned above, only making a position that one should obey and respect officers, especially when confronted by them. If you're standing, don't run. If you're driving, keep your hands at the 10:00 and 2:00 positions on the wheel.

Now, according to the following, Chicago had 784 homicides and currently has had 76 from Jan. 1st to the present: http://crime.chicagotribune.com/chicago/homicides

According to the following link, and many other sources I have encountered, black-on-black crime is the predominant type of violent crime in Chicago. http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/chicago-75-murdered-are-black-71-murderers-are-black

One question I have about Black Lives Matter is that if black lives truly do matter and their lives are valued, I most certainly think they do, why are they focused, almost exclusively, on the police when the vast majority of black homicides are from the hands of other blacks?

Edited February 15, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

3 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Calm owns the book you claim has the statement in it regarding the emigrants stealing horses from the Indians.  She has posted that it is not in the book (that you ordered). The book is also online for you to search in for the reference.

If you don't have another reference for your claim you need withdraw it.  

It's in the Board Guidelines

"BANNED BEHAVIORS include but are not limited to:

• Refusing to provide appropriate references to support your statements"

 

I WILL NOT WITHDRAW IT UNTIL I ACTUALLY READ THE NEW CLAIMS! and I fully plan to alter my opinion based on what I read.

Take a chill pill. Relax, enjoy.

[BlueDreams]

17 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Racism exists, yes. No doubt. but to the point of cops shooting blacks? no, it does not and that was my point though not explicitly stated.

From your statement: "which was a major part of their organization's existence" - Exactly. It was a major point of their existence but I do not hear of any significant KKK organization calling to violence today. People associated with Black Lives Matter do call for violence and based on an untruth. Michael Brown was no "gentle giant". furthermore, blacks are not shot by cops because they are black.

Cop related deaths and racial bias/stats: https://m.phys.org/news/2017-02-analysis-uncovers-racial-bias-fatal.html

kkk violence: http://archive.adl.org/learn/ext_us/kkk/crime.html?xpicked=4&item=kkk

Part of the reduction is also because the KKK numbers in general are flagging for other white nationalist, skinhead, and other pro-white or anti-government groups...not an actual change in how they view and act (see last few pages): https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/Ku-Klux-Klan-A-History-of-Racism.pdf

article on BLM movement and purpose: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/07/11/black-lives-matter-what-what-stands/86963292/

On the last I can understand why someone would get this impression if it focuses in more conservative blogs. But these generally do not focus on the actual movement...which is a loosely affiliated groups/chapters that are working for an overarching purpose. Because of that, there are likely to be a couple of nuts in the bunch. Just like any minimally regulated movement. What I saw with conservative blogs was focusing on 1 specific insident where someone said or did something stupid and then over-generalizing it to "mean" something about the movement itself. That doesn't work. 

You're currently giving assertions that are loosely connected and poorly backed. BLM goes well beyond Brown. This indicates to me that you know very little about both the BLM and the KKK or the contexts that either run in. 

 

With luv, 

BD

[BlueDreams]

9 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I kind of think not, generally.  And I am so glad that Harry Reid is no longer Senate Majority Leader -- or Minority Leader.  But as long as he can answer temple recommend questions appropriately I don't see any reason to raise any red flag about his membership or his worthiness to enter the temple or hold callings.  In fact, I'd defend his worthiness to do so.

However, I can imagine that this would change for me for a member of any of a number of groups that advocate ugly things.  Like say, KKK.  I'd vote to oppose a member of the KKK who was offered for a sustaining vote.  In ANY calling.  I would probably have grave doubts about a CPUSA member, or a member who was involved in an actual white supremacist organization (besides the KKK).  

I've been thinking about it and basically feel the same. I think that their are political positions and ideological groups that can run so antithetical to the purpose of the church that it would need to. A person who supports the oppression of another people would not work well in a church that proclaim all are God's children and are meant to be equal. Any group supporting or promoting violent action as a means to disrupt would also be very circumspect.

I think most people, however wonky their political ideologies, would be fine....though I would be concerned if any began spouting their beliefs in a way that went beyond actual Church teachings. For example if a person was teaching a lesson on self-reliance and then went on a tangent about welfare and how they see it as anti-thetical to self-reliance and began a tirade on welfare queens. Or (on the other end of the political spectrum....to be fair ) if someone was teaching a lesson about being children of God and used that as a springboard as to why this means we should support gay marriage. Or if someone taught the WoW and insisted this is why we need a tax on Sodas and treat sugar like tobacco. Though I wouldn't necessarily have any of them leave the church, I would set them aside and give a warning about going beyond the mark in teaching. That you're welcome to your opinions but as a teacher, bishop, RS Pres or whatever else, using the platform to promote one's pet stance isn't ok....particularly when said stance isn't actually taught by the church manuals anywhere. If they persist than they may need to lose the calling. 

 

With luv,

BD   

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

Cop related deaths and racial bias/stats: https://m.phys.org/news/2017-02-analysis-uncovers-racial-bias-fatal.html

kkk violence: http://archive.adl.org/learn/ext_us/kkk/crime.html?xpicked=4&item=kkk

Part of the reduction is also because the KKK numbers in general are flagging for other white nationalist, skinhead, and other pro-white or anti-government groups...not an actual change in how they view and act (see last few pages): https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/Ku-Klux-Klan-A-History-of-Racism.pdf

article on BLM movement and purpose: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/07/11/black-lives-matter-what-what-stands/86963292/

On the last I can understand why someone would get this impression if it focuses in more conservative blogs. But these generally do not focus on the actual movement...which is a loosely affiliated groups/chapters that are working for an overarching purpose. Because of that, there are likely to be a couple of nuts in the bunch. Just like any minimally regulated movement. What I saw with conservative blogs was focusing on 1 specific insident where someone said or did something stupid and then over-generalizing it to "mean" something about the movement itself. That doesn't work. 

You're currently giving assertions that are loosely connected and poorly backed. BLM goes well beyond Brown. This indicates to me that you know very little about both the BLM and the KKK or the contexts that either run in. 

 

With luv, 

BD

From your first link:

Quote

A recent analysis found that among 990 individuals fatally shot by US police officers in 2015, Black civilians were more than twice as likely as White civilians to have been unarmed, and civilians from "other" minority groups were significantly more likely than White civilians to have not posed an imminent threat to the officer(s) or other civilians.

And where does it say that they were shot because they were black?

How many resisted when approached by and officer?

Larry Elder, more than anyone else I personally follow in the media, frequently lays out the statistical case of how deceptive it is to say that blacks are disproportionally shot by cops than are other races. Elder cites crime statistics to do so.

Quote

It’s also interesting to watch the reaction of those who believe Clinton and defend her position, even when they are confronted with the facts. Talk about — pardon the pun — shooting the messenger. When I told someone that, according to The Washington Post, of the 965 blacks killed by cops last year, less than 4 percent involved a white cop and unarmed black man, he sniffed, “Why should a cop kill anyone who is unarmed?” Well, take the case for Michael Brown, arguably the white police-black suspect encounter that launched the Black Lives Matter movement and its mantra, “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot.” Eyewitness testimony and physical evidence show that Brown charged the police officer and attempted to get the cop’s gun. Unarmed does not mean non-threatening.

It’s hard to believe that two Ivy League-educated lawyers, Obama and Clinton, do not understand things like statistics, ratios and how to properly interpret crime data to incorporate the rate at which crime is committed by young black men versus the rate at which crime is committed by young white men.

As Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute writes in The Wall Street Journal, “According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, blacks were charged with 62 percent of all robberies, 57 percent of murders and 45 percent of assaults in the 75 largest U.S. counties in 2009, though they made up roughly 15 percent of the population there.”

(snip)

...As mentioned, already it has helped inspire murderers to kill officers in Dallas and Baton Rouge. But it also causes police officers to be less proactive, fearing that they, too, will be accused of unfairly “profiling” blacks. Cops pull back. ...

http://www.larryelder.com/column/hillary-lies-cops-die/

Wouldn't you say that the single largest portion of violent crimes are committed by young black males?

Edited February 15, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

BlueDreams;

Quote

Democratic members of Congress showed solidarity with Ferguson protesters tonight by making the “Hands up, don’t shoot” gesture on the House floor tonight.

New York’s Hakeem Jeffries and Yvette Clarke, along with Texas’ Al Green, all made the protest gesture on the House floor tonight. Green made the gesture in reference to what the St. Louis Rams did, but touted it as a “new symbol” of protest.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/dem-reps-make-hands-up-dont-shoot-protest-gesture-on-house-floor/

When members of the US House of Representatives make this gesture on the house floor to express solidarity for Fergusson protestors, this is a national issue, not some off shoot, loosely affiliated, individual connected to Black Lives matter. It is based on an outright lie and it gets cops killed. It is very serious and should be routinely denounced by all, even Black Lives Matter and all affiliated with it. Where's the denouncement of this as a lie? It's great that I hear a call to "end violence" but it seems after they denounce violence they perpetuate the very thing fomenting the violence they call for to end.

 

Edited February 15, 2017 by Darren10

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

I WILL NOT WITHDRAW IT UNTIL I ACTUALLY READ THE NEW CLAIMS! and I fully plan to alter my opinion based on what I read.

Take a chill pill. Relax, enjoy.

Hey, you're the one typing in all caps 

You have been quoted the section from your source (and Calm has told you it's not there).  You even admitted there was nothing about the emigrants stealing hoarse in the original version of the book. It's now been revised (the copy you've ordered) and even more accusations have been removed.

So, bad form on your part regarding fulfilling the CFR or withdrawing your statement and this also goes against the board guidelines.   That sums it up.

 

[Darren10]

Quote

...They should not sympathize with or be affiliated with groups or individuals who have apostatized from the Church or whose teachings or practices are contrary to the gospel.

https://www.lds.org/manual/endowed-from-on-high-temple-preparation-seminar-teachers-manual/lesson-2-we-must-be-worthy-to-enter-the-temple?lang=eng

This is for a temple recommend which is, of course, different from a calling. Despite there being a difference, having a calling does indeed assist one to prepare to worthily enter the temple. I think this is mainly due to the fact that callings allow those who accept them to serve others in various capacities.

I think being involved in a political or social group, even merely due to the public perception of that group, would impede effective execution of leadership callings. Therefore, being associated with the KKK, Black Lives Matter, etc., would cause concern to Stake Presidents calling people to be Bishop or Relief Society presidencies, there are other callings which are of less profile which people, including people not worthy of temple attendance, can carry out. Being, let's say, a music conductor or pianist is not a "leadership position" but it does allow people to serve others. They become vehicles to make the presence of the Holy Spirit known to the congregation.

What of ward librarian. Even my foul-mouth, cursing loving wife has served in that capacity for years and ward members love her there. I call her the ward bar tender. she strikes up conversations with many people in that calling which is something she is very good at doing. But, her cursing (which gets quite vulgar at times) alone would prevent her from serving as Relief Society President. Granted there are other reasons that would prevent her from serving in that calling but this thread is focused, in a general way, on what people communicate as being a means to serve in Church callings.

Question, are we standing on righteous ground when we refuse to sustain a person in a calling due to their political opinions? If a calling were extended to a leadership position, I would assume that their opinions are already known to the leadership. If not, then there is nothing wrong with not sustaining the person and addressing the issue with ward or stake leaders. however, if the calling is still extended after concerns are addressed, are we to refuse a sustaining vote based only on that person's politics?

To me it seems if we are to do that then we are using the Church as a vehicle even the First presidency and Quorum of the Twelve explicitly reject: an endorsement of politics. The Church does speak on matter concerning family and freedom of religion but beyond this it is officially neutral. Who are we to refuse one a calling in such a setting? What authority do we have? Is this unwavering ground we must remain firm upon? I'd recommend extreme caution for anyone who expresses an affirmative in refusing a sustaining vote against a person and their calling based on that person's politics.

[rongo]

57 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Hey, you're the one typing in all caps 

You have been quoted the section from your source (and Calm has told you it's not there).  You even admitted there was nothing about the emigrants stealing hoarse in the original version of the book. It's now been revised (the copy you've ordered) and even more accusations have been removed.

So, bad form on your part regarding fulfilling the CFR or withdrawing your statement and this also goes against the board guidelines.   That sums it up.

I've noticed that defending one's honor in CFR challenges becomes a hill that most people are willing to die on. It's really interesting. 

Conversely, those rare souls who do admit that they overreached or over-represented when unable to fulfill a CFR are pretty impressive. 

I don't like it when CFRs are wielded as a bludgeon, or are issued for personal views or for reporting something that was said to somebody. Not saying this is the case in this instance. I don't like it when CFRs are "weaponized."