The LDS Church, Charlottesville and continuing revelation

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

So let me get this straight - what was supposed to be the biggest representation, protest, meeting of the Alt Right, Free Speech, KKK, whatever label you would like to put on this group of people - amounted to a few hundred people.  Let me repeat that so it sinks in - a few HUNDRED people.  Now, we are all supposed to be wringing our hands that it is "pervasive", a "real cause" for concern no less.  Really?  Can you say media leading the masses around by the nose a few times?

Very, very few have even attempted to define what all the groups were in attendance or their true objectives.  Yet, they bend over backwards to excuse the those gentle souls on the left that were only there to preach peace, love, acceptance, tolerance, rainbows, and unicorns that came prepared to fight, cause violence, and vociferously abuse those who had a legal permit to assemble......which they did not and yet were allowed by the "neutral" local officials that said they did not want violence or problems.  It does not take a rocket scientist to develop a plan that prevents opposing sides from coming in contact with each other.  It certainly does not take one to stop a group that does not have a permit from being allowed to assemble.  The entire event was a farce.  The really stupid thing is the idiots who had the permit had a man that went nuts and thought it would be acceptable to run down a group on the other side.  

Now we have these peace loving, consistent critics who would damn the Church if they didn't speak and damn the Church when it does speak.  The truth and reality of this situation is that it does not matter what the Church does or says they will still whine, harp, complain and find fault with the Church.  All the while they feign innocence and love.  For me, it is really an old trick that bores me.  It certainly has long since lost its ability to entertain or make me think these individuals are just innocents asking sincere questions.

Now, if you want my personal opinion, I would have preferred the Church said nothing.  I refuse to be a pawn in what the media strives to achieve.  I would prefer that the Church of Jesus Christ had taken the same position.  Who in their right mind would ever think that racism is a good thing?  I always taught my children never state the obvious - it is a sign not thinking.  Hate is found in countless ways and racism is hardly the most common.  

I'm fairly certain all the WS and Neo Nazis in the US weren't there

[The Nehor]

22 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

So let me get this straight - what was supposed to be the biggest representation, protest, meeting of the Alt Right, Free Speech, KKK, whatever label you would like to put on this group of people - amounted to a few hundred people.  Let me repeat that so it sinks in - a few HUNDRED people.  Now, we are all supposed to be wringing our hands that it is "pervasive", a "real cause" for concern no less.  Really?  Can you say media leading the masses around by the nose a few times?

Very, very few have even attempted to define what all the groups were in attendance or their true objectives.  Yet, they bend over backwards to excuse the those gentle souls on the left that were only there to preach peace, love, acceptance, tolerance, rainbows, and unicorns that came prepared to fight, cause violence, and vociferously abuse those who had a legal permit to assemble......which they did not and yet were allowed by the "neutral" local officials that said they did not want violence or problems.  It does not take a rocket scientist to develop a plan that prevents opposing sides from coming in contact with each other.  It certainly does not take one to stop a group that does not have a permit from being allowed to assemble.  The entire event was a farce.  The really stupid thing is the idiots who had the permit had a man that went nuts and thought it would be acceptable to run down a group on the other side.  

Now we have these peace loving, consistent critics who would damn the Church if they didn't speak and damn the Church when it does speak.  The truth and reality of this situation is that it does not matter what the Church does or says they will still whine, harp, complain and find fault with the Church.  All the while they feign innocence and love.  For me, it is really an old trick that bores me.  It certainly has long since lost its ability to entertain or make me think these individuals are just innocents asking sincere questions.

Now, if you want my personal opinion, I would have preferred the Church said nothing.  I refuse to be a pawn in what the media strives to achieve.  I would prefer that the Church of Jesus Christ had taken the same position.  Who in their right mind would ever think that racism is a good thing?  I always taught my children never state the obvious - it is a sign not thinking.  Hate is found in countless ways and racism is hardly the most common.  

You do realize that when there is a rally it does not mean everyone with that affiliation goes right?

Their true objectives were represented quite well. Nazi flags, Confederate flags, anti-Semitic chants, banners covered with hate messages, former KKK as speakers. Yet somehow their purpose is ambiguous to you? Maybe they were not that bad?

Also, it actually does take genius to prevent two groups of opposing rallies from confronting each other. The police force does not have unlimited manpower and does have to respect the rights of all. They could not wholesale arrest either side.

I also think it is unkind and unwarranted to insult the police force involved.

Does that cop look happy to be protecting people doing the Nazi salute with their Confederate flags, faux KKK uniforms, and posters about the Jews being Satan's children? Yet there were few injuries and except for the one crazy Nazi in the car no fatalities. They did a fantastic job. All three fatalities were on the sides of the Left and from the cops involved. They did a fantastic job of protecting these vile individuals.

You would prefer the Church not take a stance on Nazis because you are worried it will give credence to the extremist anti-Nazis? Or because you feel calling out Nazis might weaken people supporting your political views?

[Calm]

"always taught my children never state the obvious..."

Like "thou shalt not kill" and "love thy God with all thy heart" and "love one another"?

Pray, read scriptures, fast on fast Sundays, love your spouse and don't sleep around?

All very obvious and yet the scriptures and the gospel are constantly repeating them.

"Very, very few have even attempted to define what all the groups were in attendance or their true objectives."

You are not reading the same news I am.

Edited August 20, 2017 by Calm

[thesometimesaint]

3 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

So let me get this straight - what was supposed to be the biggest representation, protest, meeting of the Alt Right, Free Speech, KKK, whatever label you would like to put on this group of people - amounted to a few hundred people.  Let me repeat that so it sinks in - a few HUNDRED people.  Now, we are all supposed to be wringing our hands that it is "pervasive", a "real cause" for concern no less.  Really?  Can you say media leading the masses around by the nose a few times?

Very, very few have even attempted to define what all the groups were in attendance or their true objectives.  Yet, they bend over backwards to excuse the those gentle souls on the left that were only there to preach peace, love, acceptance, tolerance, rainbows, and unicorns that came prepared to fight, cause violence, and vociferously abuse those who had a legal permit to assemble......which they did not and yet were allowed by the "neutral" local officials that said they did not want violence or problems.  It does not take a rocket scientist to develop a plan that prevents opposing sides from coming in contact with each other.  It certainly does not take one to stop a group that does not have a permit from being allowed to assemble.  The entire event was a farce.  The really stupid thing is the idiots who had the permit had a man that went nuts and thought it would be acceptable to run down a group on the other side.  

Now we have these peace loving, consistent critics who would damn the Church if they didn't speak and damn the Church when it does speak.  The truth and reality of this situation is that it does not matter what the Church does or says they will still whine, harp, complain and find fault with the Church.  All the while they feign innocence and love.  For me, it is really an old trick that bores me.  It certainly has long since lost its ability to entertain or make me think these individuals are just innocents asking sincere questions.

Now, if you want my personal opinion, I would have preferred the Church said nothing.  I refuse to be a pawn in what the media strives to achieve.  I would prefer that the Church of Jesus Christ had taken the same position.  Who in their right mind would ever think that racism is a good thing?  I always taught my children never state the obvious - it is a sign not thinking.  Hate is found in countless ways and racism is hardly the most common.  

If a few hundred idiots  peacefully protest that is news, but hardly worth getting upset over.  If a few hundred idiots violently protest using a car to  murder one and maiming over a dozen it is worse. That a few hundred idiots violently protest using  a car to  murder one and maiming over a dozen and the  President of the US gives them aid and comfort is deplorable.

[Marginal Gains]

I find it unfortunate that the First Presidency do not put their names and signatures to these important press releases - If the First Presidency isn't prepared to put their names to it, why should members take it seriously? The high profile Wife With A Purpose has specifically said she isn't going to list to an anonymous PR statement, she has a point in terms of protocol and formality (even if her beliefs are abhorrent).

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

If a few hundred idiots  peacefully protest that is news, but hardly worth getting upset over.  If a few hundred idiots violently protest using a car to  murder one and maiming over a dozen it is worse. That a few hundred idiots violently protest using  a car to  murder one and maiming over a dozen and the  President of the US gives them aid and comfort is deplorable.

So, saint, let's look at your complaint and understand how you emulate the media.

1. There were not a few 100 people in the car driving.  How many people were in the car driving - ONE.  Repeat a few times until you grasp its meaning.  You conflate, you blame, every individual at the protest for the actions of that single man.  Why?  What does it serve to misrepresent the event so heinously?
2. Those who legally assembled - the ONLY one's with a permit to do so - were peaceful.  They came prepared for the kind of violence that they had met at several universities, but they did not go through the town ransacking it or beating up citizens.  You see how you distort the reality; why?  What are you trying to achieve when you join the media and distort the truth so completely.
3. So now, we did not have several hundred people driving one car; we did not have violent protesters at the assembly; the car was not part of the protest. It was not at the site of the protest and was not used.  So in what have you stated is found any truth or reflection of reality?  Not a single point.
4. The President gave them comfort was your last point.  Hmm, you mean he identified the fact that in the protest both sides were wrong - the side that actually was legally entitled to protest and the other side, without a permit and yet was allowed to protest and came prepared to cause violence to those who were legitimately protesting.  And you want to make the president responsible for actually admitting that there can be no violence without two parties involved when both one comes prepared for violence and the other side wants to be violent. 

Just to be clear; I have no respect for the message of the some of those who came to protest - the KKK, the Neo-Nazis, etc.  I don't have a lot of interest in keeping statues of Civil War men who fought for the Confederacy other than I do think whitewashing history is a mistake.  What I am strongly supportive of is those who obtain a permit to assemble in the public square - regardless of their message - should be allowed to protest without abuse or threat of violence from anyone else.  If a group does not have a permit to assemble then they should be told to disburse and leave the area.  If they do not, they should be forcibly removed.  The gigantic error - the one that if it had not occurred there would have been no violence of any kind - is allowing the opposing group - vociferously so - and without a permit - to continue.  Had that group been stopped immediately and removed; had everyone ignored the 200 people meeting at the Robert E Lee statue in the park there would have been no violence, no news, nothing.  The media fed this beast, grossly exaggerated the power of this group; they excited and exacerbated the opposing side; local politicians supported, blatantly so, and then sat back and watched violence erupt.  And then had the temerity to ask how it could happen.  They should look in the mirror and they will see why it happened.

 

[Storm Rider]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You do realize that when there is a rally it does not mean everyone with that affiliation goes right?

Their true objectives were represented quite well. Nazi flags, Confederate flags, anti-Semitic chants, banners covered with hate messages, former KKK as speakers. Yet somehow their purpose is ambiguous to you? Maybe they were not that bad?

Also, it actually does take genius to prevent two groups of opposing rallies from confronting each other. The police force does not have unlimited manpower and does have to respect the rights of all. They could not wholesale arrest either side.

I also think it is unkind and unwarranted to insult the police force involved.

Does that cop look happy to be protecting people doing the Nazi salute with their Confederate flags, faux KKK uniforms, and posters about the Jews being Satan's children? Yet there were few injuries and except for the one crazy Nazi in the car no fatalities. They did a fantastic job. All three fatalities were on the sides of the Left and from the cops involved. They did a fantastic job of protecting these vile individuals.

You would prefer the Church not take a stance on Nazis because you are worried it will give credence to the extremist anti-Nazis? Or because you feel calling out Nazis might weaken people supporting your political views?

Nehor, your comments are offensive because they are ignorant.  They are offensive because you create a story out of whole cloth and you know better.  I have never once supported the message of these protesters.  I have consistently said that I am focused on the rights of protesters to assemble.  I have stated it multiple times.  My political beliefs have nothing in common with these groups. I don't know anyone who does support these groups.  You either prove otherwise or retract it and apologize. 

Frankly, you don't know what you are talking about. 

[Storm Rider]

5 hours ago, Duncan said:

I'm fairly certain all the WS and Neo Nazis in the US weren't there

Duncan, the media blew this thing up as if it was to be some grand event.  People from all over the nation were attending in a grand force.  It amounted to approximately 200 people.  Given the news coverage you would think that the KKK and the New-Nazis had groups in every city, town, county and state in  the USA.  Have you read anything that provides evidence of such a thing?  I haven't.  Yet, we have the entire nation in an uproar as if this is the most important event of this decade.  Why?  Who is served by exaggerating this event in such a way?  What is their end game?

I do think that there is wisdom in the authorities being aware of these types of groups, but I also think that the majority of us should ignore them.  Don't give them media attention; don't observe their protests, etc.  Had no one showed up to counter them and the media ignored them what harm would there have been?  I think what would happen is that after the event the media would have been left with a few hundred people met in the park - it would have been a ten second snippet and done with.  We don't need to feed the fire.

It appears now we have a group on the Left - intifa - who is committed to violence and has demonstrated their willingness at several events across the nation.  This insignificant group now comes prepared for violence - carrying guns no less.  I expect that this group now is even more committed to their cause and more determined to speak out loudly, which may actually attract more people to them.  I see both sides being more empowered and more willing to scream louder than the other side.  I see the violence just beginning.

[california boy]

Wow Storm, I never thought you were the kind of guy that wouldn't stand up against evil.  Nor did I think you were the kind of guy that would chastise the church for speaking out against evil.  I didn't think you were someone who would condemn those that did stand up against evil.  .  I just can't see how this fits into your idea of what the message of Christ was all about.  I am really taken by complete surprise.  

[BlueDreams]

3 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Those who legally assembled - the ONLY one's with a permit to do so - were peaceful.  They came prepared for the kind of violence that they had met at several universities, but they did not go through the town ransacking it or beating up citizens.  You see how you distort the reality; why?  What are you trying to achieve when you join the media and distort the truth so completely.

You mean like these peaceful protesters?

I have watched videos and scenes of violence. The worst violence by far was from the WN's, alt-right, neo nazis, and other garden variety racists. They were also inciting violence by goading the counter protesters with violent chants, racist posters and mockery, and nazi salutes. as well as several cases of escalating violence like charging at the crowd, throwing the first punch etc. and remember they started their weekend of protesting when they had a permit for something at noon the next day, in the dark with torches in a manner similar to the KKK terrorist group, chanting blood and soil, the Jews will not replace us, this is our city now, and at one point black lives splatter. Not all the counter protesters were super peaceful, sure, but the worst violence I saw from them that wasn't  instigated as immediate self defense was cussing, spitting, and pepper spray. These are not equal. 

And before you say I'm joining the media. I looked for first hand images and video. Including a long livestream from one of the torch wielding protesters. And another from a different WN group. 

It is complete nonsense that this was somehow equal in fault. One side was ready for a race war. The other was protecting their town and standing up to their way of life. 

 

With luv,

BD 

Edited August 20, 2017 by BlueDreams

[Duncan]

4 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Duncan, the media blew this thing up as if it was to be some grand event.  People from all over the nation were attending in a grand force.  It amounted to approximately 200 people.  Given the news coverage you would think that the KKK and the New-Nazis had groups in every city, town, county and state in  the USA.  Have you read anything that provides evidence of such a thing?  I haven't.  Yet, we have the entire nation in an uproar as if this is the most important event of this decade.  Why?  Who is served by exaggerating this event in such a way?  What is their end game?

I do think that there is wisdom in the authorities being aware of these types of groups, but I also think that the majority of us should ignore them.  Don't give them media attention; don't observe their protests, etc.  Had no one showed up to counter them and the media ignored them what harm would there have been?  I think what would happen is that after the event the media would have been left with a few hundred people met in the park - it would have been a ten second snippet and done with.  We don't need to feed the fire.

It appears now we have a group on the Left - intifa - who is committed to violence and has demonstrated their willingness at several events across the nation.  This insignificant group now comes prepared for violence - carrying guns no less.  I expect that this group now is even more committed to their cause and more determined to speak out loudly, which may actually attract more people to them.  I see both sides being more empowered and more willing to scream louder than the other side.  I see the violence just beginning.

Do you think that this event would have received so much attention if PUSA hadn't said what he said? Would the Church still have condemn it if that WS lady hadn't have been involved? I think you have  nation in uproar as you say because Nazi's still exist in America, on US soil. Did we not fight a war to prevent that from happening? I don't think it takes a revelation to condemn such groups, it should come naturally. Unless you've been in jail since 1930, then Naziism isn't a good thing.I think the protestors showed up, not for the media, but to show these groups that we don't want them or have anything to do with them and we don't tolerate it.

Guns in america is another topic but you wouldn't have antifa if it weren't for facism in the first place. I don't understand the Tiki torches, apparently they think this is 1417 or something, society has invented the flashlight Then they complain when they get shamed on TV, well it's because you're all lit up and everyone can see your face

Edited August 20, 2017 by Duncan

[Gray]

5 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

So, saint, let's look at your complaint and understand how you emulate the media.

1. There were not a few 100 people in the car driving.  How many people were in the car driving - ONE.  Repeat a few times until you grasp its meaning.  You conflate, you blame, every individual at the protest for the actions of that single man.  Why?  What does it serve to misrepresent the event so heinously?
2. Those who legally assembled - the ONLY one's with a permit to do so - were peaceful.  They came prepared for the kind of violence that they had met at several universities, but they did not go through the town ransacking it or beating up citizens.  You see how you distort the reality; why?  What are you trying to achieve when you join the media and distort the truth so completely.
3. So now, we did not have several hundred people driving one car; we did not have violent protesters at the assembly; the car was not part of the protest. It was not at the site of the protest and was not used.  So in what have you stated is found any truth or reflection of reality?  Not a single point.
4. The President gave them comfort was your last point.  Hmm, you mean he identified the fact that in the protest both sides were wrong - the side that actually was legally entitled to protest and the other side, without a permit and yet was allowed to protest and came prepared to cause violence to those who were legitimately protesting.  And you want to make the president responsible for actually admitting that there can be no violence without two parties involved when both one comes prepared for violence and the other side wants to be violent. 

Just to be clear; I have no respect for the message of the some of those who came to protest - the KKK, the Neo-Nazis, etc.  I don't have a lot of interest in keeping statues of Civil War men who fought for the Confederacy other than I do think whitewashing history is a mistake.  What I am strongly supportive of is those who obtain a permit to assemble in the public square - regardless of their message - should be allowed to protest without abuse or threat of violence from anyone else.  If a group does not have a permit to assemble then they should be told to disburse and leave the area.  If they do not, they should be forcibly removed.  The gigantic error - the one that if it had not occurred there would have been no violence of any kind - is allowing the opposing group - vociferously so - and without a permit - to continue.  Had that group been stopped immediately and removed; had everyone ignored the 200 people meeting at the Robert E Lee statue in the park there would have been no violence, no news, nothing.  The media fed this beast, grossly exaggerated the power of this group; they excited and exacerbated the opposing side; local politicians supported, blatantly so, and then sat back and watched violence erupt.  And then had the temerity to ask how it could happen.  They should look in the mirror and they will see why it happened.

 

 

 

"We're not non-violent. We'll f***** kill these people if we have to." - White supremacist Christopher Cantwell

 

"At some point we will have enough power that we will clear them from the streets forever. That which is degenerate in white countries will be removed... you ain't seen nothing yet." - Another white supremacist at the event

Edited August 20, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

5 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

It appears now we have a group on the Left - intifa - who is committed to violence and has demonstrated their willingness at several events across the nation.  This insignificant group now comes prepared for violence - carrying guns no less.  I expect that this group now is even more committed to their cause and more determined to speak out loudly, which may actually attract more people to them.  I see both sides being more empowered and more willing to scream louder than the other side.  I see the violence just beginning.

Antifa aren't the ones who killed someone at the rally, and they're not the ones looking to clear the "filth" of non-whites off the streets.

Giving aid and comfort to neonazis is absolutely deplorable. You may say you don't agree with the neonazis, but why do you keep covering for them? Trying to make it out like Antifa is somehow just as bad or even worse? There's no comparing brawling antinazis with murderous Nazis.

The person who organized the march, by the way, said that he was glad the girl died. That's who you're covering for. .

Edited August 20, 2017 by Gray

[longview]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Also, it actually does take genius to prevent two groups of opposing rallies from confronting each other.

If the mayor of Charlottesville had handled it the same way as NYC had done, it would NOT have escalated so easily which is what the partisan press deeply desired.  See:  http://nypost.com/2017/01/22/bike-cops-deployed-for-crowd-control-during-protests/

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The police force does not have unlimited manpower and does have to respect the rights of all.

No has the right to commit violence and ransack the town.  "Shouting matches" should NOT be allowed.  Demonstrations MUST have permits and be confined to limited specific locations with opposing sides separated by several blocks.  The Police must arrest any that act disorderly and promptly removed to a warehouse for confinement (a few days if necessary).

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

They could not wholesale arrest either side.

The protesters did not number in the thousands.  The city had a lot more "first responders" (firemen could use their tanker trucks to hose down the idiots).  Nearby towns could send additional personell and the highway patrol could manage outer periphery.  The National Guard could have been stationed nearby in a staging area to respond to riot conditions.

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Does that cop look happy to be protecting people - - -

There is noise that the mayor may have ordered the force to "stand down."  Which is reminiscent of what transpired in Berkeley as the campus police stood by and allowed the fracas go on unchecked.

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

It is complete nonsense that this was somehow equal in fault. One side was ready for a race war. The other was protecting their town and standing up to their way of life.

I think it was a LOT more complicated than that.  The mayor stunk up the joint with his utter lack of responsibility.  Trump was correct in condemning ALL sides.

Edited August 20, 2017 by longview

[bluebell]

18 hours ago, Duncan said:

if you don't trust the Gov't then it on yourself, but don't get into the whole sovereign citizen movement!  I decide if Naziism has any sway or not, as Pres. Brown used to say you can't stop a bird from landing in your tree but you can stop it from nesting. In Canada we this stuff too but it isn't the same I don't think. I watched an interview the other day with a reformed neo nazi and he said when he was in it like 20-25 years ago, it was skinhead, army boots, certain jacket it was more like a gang whereas now he said neo nazi's have corporatized and ditched all that and gone for white shirts and ties, it's subtler now with these breakouts here and now though. I was debating on FB with people in my stake, one guy is in a bishopric, a high councilor a former high councilor all feel that they have a legit voice that needs to be heard and I say they don't, Naziism isn't worth defending and I can't believe High Priests think otherwise. We know what they say, like what more do they need to say that we need to hear? to me, it's nothing, we don't want their opinions. How do you prevent that? lawmakers but if you can't trust them then you decide if you'll listen to them.

You think it's a good idea for each individual citizen to decide who should have a voice in public and who shouldn't?  Do you really trust mob rule?  I don't.  Mob rule is a very very scary thing and it can turn on you just as quickly as it turns on your enemies.  

I don't personally think that nazis or racists need to be heard and I definitely don't believe they have a valid voice.  But I do believe they have the right to get together in public and talk about what they believe.

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Nehor, your comments are offensive because they are ignorant.  They are offensive because you create a story out of whole cloth and you know better.  I have never once supported the message of these protesters.  I have consistently said that I am focused on the rights of protesters to assemble.  I have stated it multiple times.  My political beliefs have nothing in common with these groups. I don't know anyone who does support these groups.  You either prove otherwise or retract it and apologize. 

Frankly, you don't know what you are talking about. 

No, you are defending these people. You should stop or explain why you want to defend Nazis as law abiding people because they have a permit and some of them like to drive cars into people. If you want to argue that not all are terrible despite marching with people that are throwing Nazi salutes,, hauling around Nazi and Confederate flags, and spewing anti-Semitic rhetoric you can. You would just be completely wrong. Any decent person would leave immediately.

[Duncan]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

You think it's a good idea for each individual citizen to decide who should have a voice in public and who shouldn't?  Do you really trust mob rule?  I don't.  Mob rule is a very very scary thing and it can turn on you just as quickly as it turns on your enemies.  

I don't personally think that nazis or racists need to be heard and I definitely don't believe they have a valid voice.  But I do believe they have the right to get together in public and talk about what they believe.

no, I don't think mob rule is the best way to govern things, we need the elected government to have laws and enforce them. How do figure going from the individual to a mob? Mobs are fickle! I've seen Gladiator a meelion times!!!! I figured you weren't pro nazi or WS! I guess if things are kept civil and no one is induced into violence or illegal activity. One thing to keep in mind is something may be legal but not ethical and vice versa. 

Edited August 20, 2017 by Duncan

[The Nehor]

23 minutes ago, longview said:

If the mayor of Charlottesville had handled it the same way as NYC had done, it would NOT have escalated so easily which is what the partisan press deeply desired.  See:  http://nypost.com/2017/01/22/bike-cops-deployed-for-crowd-control-during-protests/

No has the right to commit violence and ransack the town.  "Shouting matches" should NOT be allowed.  Demonstrations MUST have permits and be confined to limited specific locations with opposing sides separated by several blocks.  The Police must arrest any that act disorderly and promptly removed to a warehouse for confinement (a few days if necessary).

The protesters did not number in the thousands.  The city had a lot more "first responders" (firemen could use their tanker trucks to hose down the idiots).  Nearby towns could send additional personell and the highway patrol could manage outer periphery.  The National Guard could have been stationed nearby in a staging area to respond to riot conditions.

There is noise that the mayor may have ordered the force to "stand down."  Which is reminiscent of what transpired in Berkeley as the campus police stood by and allowed the fracas go on unchecked.

I think it was a LOT more complicated than that.  The mayor stunk up the joint with his utter lack of responsibility.  Trump was correct in condemning ALL sides.

The mayor was in on having this disaster in his city and let it happen. He does not want to be re elected? He wanted it to go bad? Are you insane? Why are you constructing vast conspiracies to make literal Nazis look not so bad? Think about that.

And Trump's moral equivalency between Nazis and those who oppose Nazis is reprehensible, not correct.

[BlueDreams]

5 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Duncan, the media blew this thing up as if it was to be some grand event.  People from all over the nation were attending in a grand force.  It amounted to approximately 200 people.  Given the news coverage you would think that the KKK and the New-Nazis had groups in every city, town, county and state in  the USA.  Have you read anything that provides evidence of such a thing?  I haven't.  Yet, we have the entire nation in an uproar as if this is the most important event of this decade.  Why?  Who is served by exaggerating this event in such a way?  What is their end game?I

One of my posts apparently got lost in the net. No news coverage has been as exaggerative about their presence as you placed here. But still, they have a surprising presence in the US and derivatives of these groups are located across the nation.  Out of 917 groups, over half are groups that could have been tied to white nationalism in some way or fashion. Another 114 are likely also white racism oriented (the anti-muslim/immigrant groups). These are also disproportionately the arbiters of hate-based violence in the country. And this does not include all white culture and alt-right style movements, particularly ones online that are also growing (see here). It is not the most important event of this decade...but it's a movement that if left unchecked can grow and can gain political power and voice.....placing others at risk of losing rights and protections. It has the potential to shift the direction of our country for the worst. It's concerning.  

Quote

do think that there is wisdom in the authorities being aware of these types of groups, but I also think that the majority of us should ignore them.  Don't give them media attention; don't observe their protests, etc.  Had no one showed up to counter them and the media ignored them what harm would there have been?  I think what would happen is that after the event the media would have been left with a few hundred people met in the park - it would have been a ten second snippet and done with.  We don't need to feed the fire.

Ignoring a problem doesn't make a problem go away. It often just means the issue gets worse. And this is a growing movement. Leaving their voices unchallenged means a sense of acceptance or at least tolerance for their voice as a viable option of thought. Silence is just another form of enabling.  Personally I am very grateful for the church for its stances on immigration, refugees, and now "white culture" and white nationalist movements. At the very least, it helps retard the growth of support or acceptance of these groups among our members who may be vulnerable to their messages and anti-minority fervor.

 

With luv,

BD

 

 

Edited August 20, 2017 by BlueDreams

[thesometimesaint]

9 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

So, saint, let's look at your complaint and understand how you emulate the media.

1. There were not a few 100 people in the car driving.  How many people were in the car driving - ONE.  Repeat a few times until you grasp its meaning.  You conflate, you blame, every individual at the protest for the actions of that single man.  Why?  What does it serve to misrepresent the event so heinously?
2. Those who legally assembled - the ONLY one's with a permit to do so - were peaceful.  They came prepared for the kind of violence that they had met at several universities, but they did not go through the town ransacking it or beating up citizens.  You see how you distort the reality; why?  What are you trying to achieve when you join the media and distort the truth so completely.
3. So now, we did not have several hundred people driving one car; we did not have violent protesters at the assembly; the car was not part of the protest. It was not at the site of the protest and was not used.  So in what have you stated is found any truth or reflection of reality?  Not a single point.
4. The President gave them comfort was your last point.  Hmm, you mean he identified the fact that in the protest both sides were wrong - the side that actually was legally entitled to protest and the other side, without a permit and yet was allowed to protest and came prepared to cause violence to those who were legitimately protesting.  And you want to make the president responsible for actually admitting that there can be no violence without two parties involved when both one comes prepared for violence and the other side wants to be violent. 

Just to be clear; I have no respect for the message of the some of those who came to protest - the KKK, the Neo-Nazis, etc.  I don't have a lot of interest in keeping statues of Civil War men who fought for the Confederacy other than I do think whitewashing history is a mistake.  What I am strongly supportive of is those who obtain a permit to assemble in the public square - regardless of their message - should be allowed to protest without abuse or threat of violence from anyone else.  If a group does not have a permit to assemble then they should be told to disburse and leave the area.  If they do not, they should be forcibly removed.  The gigantic error - the one that if it had not occurred there would have been no violence of any kind - is allowing the opposing group - vociferously so - and without a permit - to continue.  Had that group been stopped immediately and removed; had everyone ignored the 200 people meeting at the Robert E Lee statue in the park there would have been no violence, no news, nothing.  The media fed this beast, grossly exaggerated the power of this group; they excited and exacerbated the opposing side; local politicians supported, blatantly so, and then sat back and watched violence erupt.  And then had the temerity to ask how it could happen.  They should look in the mirror and they will see why it happened.

 

A gang of bank robbers rob a bank and one of them  murders the bank teller. All the gang is responsible for that murder

The opposing group had a permit. No group has a permit to commit violence EVER.

So reporting on violence is worse than the  actual violence?

For the President of the US to side with the NAZIS, the KKK, and the Alt-Right is deplorable. These are not good people.

[Jeanne]

Am I wrong to feel kind of bad about the statues going down?  I am a US History buff..every country (and our young country) has gone through a series of growing pains.  I look at history being destroyed...a representation of how far we have come.  I dunno know...I hate to see all these things just go away...but whatever brings peace I guess will be a good thing. 

[Duncan]

3 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Am I wrong to feel kind of bad about the statues going down?  I am a US History buff..every country (and our young country) has gone through a series of growing pains.  I look at history being destroyed...a representation of how far we have come.  I dunno know...I hate to see all these things just go away...but whatever brings peace I guess will be a good thing. 

ah we have history books! There aren't any Hitler statues in Germany but we all know him! Plus we have this ditty from the late great Spike Jones

 

Edited August 20, 2017 by Duncan

[SamuelTheLamanite]

On 8/18/2017 at 5:05 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

The LDS faith is constantly accused by non-Mormons of being racist.  Mormons are often in the news, especially when LDS candidates run for office nationally.  I am astonished that you are unaware of the bad press we get.

Yes.  It was absolutely necessary for the church to make a statement.  We are living in dangerous times. 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

On 8/18/2017 at 11:59 AM, stemelbow said:

So common sense is revelation?  most people seem to be full of revelation then.  If so, then the claim of revelation in the Church feels empty. 

Revelations are not the mysteries of the Universe, revelations are what we need to hear.  I know it is common sense, but it is not common sense to some.  

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Am I wrong to feel kind of bad about the statues going down?  I am a US History buff..every country (and our young country) has gone through a series of growing pains.  I look at history being destroyed...a representation of how far we have come.  I dunno know...I hate to see all these things just go away...but whatever brings peace I guess will be a good thing. 

If Confederate sites were treated more like Nazi sites I would not have a problem. Something more along the lines of "never again" monuments or a source of sorrow at past mistakes. Places of penitence and self-reflection. Instead people are perversely proud of them. There are ways to keep the past alive and remembered without honoring those who risked and gave their lives in battle in the hope that others would not be free.