It's Official: SCOTUS Overturns Roe v. Wade

[Chum]

21 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

At this point, I feel like we are being trolled.  This is such a basic aspect of language, that Obehave has to be deliberately roping us along to provoke a reaction.  

I love this part. It's like where everything comes together and then the plot speeds way up.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

Possible but that section looks fairly normal.  If a provider believes that it is an emergency (such as ectopic pregnancy), then they should easily be able to prove that it is an emergency.

And they don’t have to prove for sure it is true according to the language, but only more probably true iirc. 

As long as other medical professionals are doing the reviews, I would think it relatively safe. If they have non medicals doing the reviews, like legislators who think etopic pregnancies can be transplanted into the womb, I would be more worried if I was a doctor. 

Edited July 1, 2022 by Calm

[pogi]

34 minutes ago, Obehave said:

There is nothing but evil beyond the realm of what is good.  Sorry. That is reality. And evil acts and evil people are a lot more common than many people realize. 

Anytime anyone does anything that is not good they are doing the opposite of what is good. We should face up to that fact rather than suggesting that maybe it isn't so bad when people do something that is not good.

You are sounding more and more like Ahab.  What ever happened to your buddy Obeone?  

Quote

Anytime anyone does anything that is not good they are doing the opposite of what is good.

I disagree. 

Man cannot sin in ignorance.  Man can therefore transgress God's laws (not good) in ignorance, and it won't be counted as evil against them.

 

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Obehave said:

Yes I am getting that a lot. Apparently my perspective on many issues reminds other people of Ahab and his perspective, or how he said things.

But surely Ahab and I are not the only 2 people on this planet with this perspective.

I mean, that isn't even a possibility here. Is it? Not among other faithful Latter-day Saints 

It is more your ‘mannerisms’ than your perspectives, imo. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

It is more your ‘mannerisms’ than your perspectives, imo. 

In this case, it is both his mannerisms, language, and perspective.  This kind of black/white/good/evil thinking is classic Ahab.  

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, Obehave said:

Well whatever it is I wish people would stop saying I am something I'm not.  "I" am not and never have been an Ahab, even if some people think I once played an "Ahab" on the internet. 

Now having said that I'm willing to bet there are still some people who will still think I am an Ahab.

Unfortunately Ahab ‘played’ with language so as to feel like he wasn’t lying or breaking a promise when he did. For example, because he didn’t post under the names he was banned for, he didn’t see that as his newest alias/avatar being a sock puppet or breaking the board’s rules of doing end runs around moderation to avoid consequences of his refusal to abide by board rules…this even though the mods have said that is bannable behaviour.  

So if you were Ahab, it would be quite conceivable you would intentionally try to deceive even as you rationalized it as not deceiving. You are suffering the consequences of Ahab’s misbehavior. 

However, he didn’t change his style of writing much for ten, 15 years maybe (and people complained they couldn’t understand him from the beginning iirc) and if he was you, that means he intentionally wrote with poor sentence construction, etc even to the point of incoherency so as to make it very difficult at times to understand him.

You are, otoh, coherent, even if you use words in novel ways very, very similar to how he did and construct your sentences somewhat like he did, but with decent transition, etc and such that makes it much easier to read.  I often wondered if English was his second language, to be blunt.  I don’t with you.

So I don’t believe you are Ahab, but I am gobsmacked about the similarities in your writing apart from the coherent quality of writing. It was so unusual, I am having a hard time thinking someone else like him not only exists, but also found his way to this message board. 

Edited July 1, 2022 by Calm

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Obehave said:

Well whatever it is I wish people would stop saying I am something I'm not.  "I" am not and never have been an Ahab, even if some people think I once played an "Ahab" on the internet. 

Now having said that I'm willing to bet there are still some people who will still think I am an Ahab.

This also sounds like classic Ahab.  This is almost verbatim of his previous denials in disassociating "I" with Ahab, but never really denying that the person behind the internet persona is the same person "that once played Ahab on the internet".   

Are you the same person that played Obeone on the internet?

Edited July 1, 2022 by pogi

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, Chum said:

A personal introduction seems a weird bar to be able to qualify someone as evil.  Would you withhold an evil label from Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Gaddafi, Mussolini, Mobutu, Ceausescu, Milosevic or, say, the Adversary - just because you know them like you know Adam?

Nice job ripping my words completely from their context.  I'm not going to dignify that reprehensible comment with more of a response.

[Meadowchik]

My friend collected this and gave permission to share:

 

Maternal mortality in the US is 23.8 per 100,00 live births as of 2020. The risk of maternal mortality for Black women is significantly higher. It’s 55.3 per 100,000. In comparison, driving a car (one of the most dangerous things we do in the US) has a mortality rate of 11.7 per 100,000. 

 

However, maternal mortality only tracks to 42 days postpartum. More than 25% of women experience postpartum mental health issues and suicide accounts for 20% of women’s deaths in the first year postpartum. These are not tracked. 

 

Additionally, maternal mortality rates are likely significantly under reported. 

 

Severe maternal morbidity (not mortality) impacts about 1000 wyte women per 100,000 births but is more than twice that for Black women and almost twice the rate for pregnancies in under 20 year olds.

 

However (again), maternal morbidity is likely extremely underreported as the “most common definition, developed by the CDC, is based on 21 indicators (16 diagnoses and five procedures) identified by an array of diagnostic codes assigned at the time of birth.” IOW if it’s not immediately adjacent to an in-hospital delivery of a baby, it’s not well tracked. 

 

A woman’s risk of being murdered during pregnancy or the year after pregnancy is 16% higher than women who are/were not pregnant. 

 

1 in 6 women who experience domestic abuse are first abused during pregnancy. 

 

Having a child permanently impact’s a woman’s chances of working and the more children she has, the less likely she is to work. It also causes a temporary drop in earnings that takes more than a year to recover from. 

 

Women experience a higher rate of poverty than men and women with children experience a higher rate of poverty than women without children. Almost 25% of unmarried women with children are living in poverty. 

 

Pregnancy, and everything that goes with it, is hazardous. Major social reform and technological (medical) innovation can reduce the hazards. Banning abortion cannot.

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2022-02-23/u-s-maternal-mortality-rate-surged-in-2020).

https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/state-by-state

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449205/

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/25/health/postpartum-depression-womens-health-wellness/index.html

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03392-8

https://www.marchofdimes.org/pregnancy/abuse-during-pregnancy.aspx

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2021/oct/severe-maternal-morbidity-united-states-primer

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/06/cost-of-motherhood-on-womens-employment-and-earnings.html

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/basic-facts-women-poverty/

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Obehave said:

Good is simply good. But yes good can also be categorized by levels of simply good vs better and best.

 

But bad is not simply evil, and that's why you are getting so much pushback on your posts.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Obehave said:

Well whatever it is I wish people would stop saying I am something I'm not.  "I" am not and never have been an Ahab, even if some people think I once played an "Ahab" on the internet. 

Now having said that I'm willing to bet there are still some people who will still think I am an Ahab.

Well, there's one sure test.  😜

If I asked you if you believe we are working to become like God and eventually become Gods what would you respond?

[Kenngo1969]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

Justice Thomas wants to curb that urge [to overreach, even when the results obtained are desirable].  He wants to limit the role and function of government to its constitutional parameters.  That does not mean he is staking out a particular position on a disputed issue (abortion, contraceptives, interracial marriage, etc.).  Rather, it means that he is saying that such issues are not within the stewardship and authority of SCOTUS to decide, and that such issues must instead be addressed in accordance with the Constitution.  The Constitution allocates some limited responsibilities to the federal government, and leaves the rest for the individual states and the people.  Justice Thomas rejects the "ends justify the means" approach to interpreting the Constitution.  He may very well like the "ends," but he is insisting that we use constitutional "means" to get there.  

 

Quoted for truth, bold in original, bracketed material mine (for context).*

*Shut up, Smac97!  It's much more fun to assassinate Justice Thomas's character and to question his intellect based on our gloss of what he has said [and a wildly mistaken gloss it is, at that] than it is to try to figure out what he is actually saying by examining his words carefully!  

Edited July 1, 2022 by Kenngo1969

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Obehave said:

I disagree.  I believe to sin is to intentionally do something one believes is not good because one wants to do it regardless.  Or the opposite, to intentionally NOT do something one believes is good because one doesn't want to do it regardless.

Sin requires intent and knowledge of good and evil.  Evil is what is not good regardless of whether one knows the difference between good and evil.

I agree, but to transgress God's laws is still not good (is evil) even if the one transgressing God's laws doesn't know what is good or evil.

Men can sin in ignorance but because of the Atonement of Christ men cannot be held accountable for sins committed in ignorance, which I'm guessing is what Pogi is saying.  

The Atonement of Christ automatically covers all sins of ignorance.

[smac97]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

I am not particularly a fan of substantive due process and I see how it can be used by activist judges to give them powers that they should not have.  

Having said that, unless one intends to uproot any sense of privacy and create seriously concerning vulnerabilities for the American people, one should be advocating for amendments to the bill of rights - making these unenumerated rights enumerated - or alternative legal devices (or whatever legal jargon you want to insert here) to protect these cherished rights in ways that do not rely on substantive due process before seeking to overturn all of these rulings. 

That is all fine for you and me as private citizens with voting rights, but it is not really the responsibility of one branch of the government to tell another how and when to do its job.  Justice Thomas is trying to constrain overreach by SCOTUS.  He may well be wrong in some of the particular eventual outcomes, but his overarching emphasis - constraining SCOTUS from "legislating from the bench" - remains valid.

If SCOTUS has behaved improperly, then the only thing it can do is reverse itself.  Preserving an unconstitutional action to give Congress time to get its act together (and/or letting the states get their acts together) is not only improper, it could be seen as politicking.

4 hours ago, pogi said:

That, to me, is the madness in this.  There is simply no guarantee that these unenumerated rights we take for granted can or will be protected in the future after these rulings based on substantive due process are overturned, or if they are eventually reinstated it could take countless years and even generations given the current political climate.  Unwise. 

I see this as neither "madness" nor "unwise."  

We as a society have dealt with substantial disruptions in the way of things many times now.  The abolition of slavery, suffrage, Brown v. Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act, Obamacare, Obergefell, and so on.  We can get through this as well.

4 hours ago, pogi said:

I do not trust that there is not an element of political activism in his methods. 

Constraining SCOTUS from veering into political activism is itself "an element of political activism?"

Sorry, can't go along with that.

4 hours ago, pogi said:

I think he knows that overturning these rulings puts these rights at risk of ever being protected in the future - especially with the conservative majority that he holds in the court currently. 

If constituional "rights" have been improperly fabricated by the Supreme Court, they ought to be at risk.  There is a process for amending the Constitution.  There is also a process for ascertaining unenumerated rights.  I don't think Justice Thomas disputes either of these things.  What he does challenge is the propriety of creating rights based on Substantive Due Process, which you yourself are "not particularly a fan of."

4 hours ago, pogi said:

I think he is using this majority as a political opportunity to separate the wheat from the tares, as he sees it.

I'm not seeing it.  And even if was attempting this, it looks like he failed.  Not only did nobody from "the conservative majority" sign on to his concurrence, they seemed to be quite emphatic about Dobbs being unique and distinguishable from Griswold et al.

Has Substantive Due Process become a shortcut, via judicial activisim, for SCOTUS to take over the responsibilities of Congress, to avoid the hard and messy work of amending the Constitution?  As to Dobbs and abortion, I think the answer is "yes."  And I think it's fair and reasonable to ask similar questions about Griswold et al. (including Loving).  To be more clear, I think it is the duty of the SCOTUS to give some consideration to these questions.

4 hours ago, pogi said:

By disbanding all substantive due process, he can then (with the majority in the court) reinstate those rights he cares about under alternative legal means and reject those rights he opposes (SSM, etc. that he specifically mentioned).  Fortunately, it doesn't seem that the other Justices are on board with him.  

If there are "alternative legal {read: constitutional} means" to ascertain rights to contraception, etc., the there is no problem because SCOTUS is following the Constitution.

Conversely, if there are not "alternative legal {read: constitutional} means" to ascertain these rights, then it is the responsibility of SCOTUS to reverse itself.  That's hardly the end of the story, though, right?  Because those "rights" can be A) properly added to the Constitution via the amendment process, and/or B) legislatively created, at the federal and/or state level, and/or C) recognized in or added to state constitutions, and/or D) be left to the people as an unregulated thing.

I don't think Justice Thomas is opposed to these rights per se, he just thinks they are not properly grounded in the Constitution via the Substantive Due Process theory.

Thanks,

-Smac 

Edited July 1, 2022 by smac97

[pogi]

33 minutes ago, Obehave said:

No.   Do you think other people exist who also say what you say?  Are you those other people who say what you say?

I have seen and heard from many people who essentially say the same thing as each other, sometimes using the same words.  Had you never seen that type of thing before you saw me posting on the internet?

I feel like maybe I have entered the Twilight Zone, or some other weird place where people think someone is who he isn't.  

Ahab was one of a kind.  Hard to replicate.  Never seen anything like him before in my life, never planned on meeting anyone else quite like him every again.  So the coincidence that someone who speaks just like him and believes just like him in many regards would show up on the same obscure Mormon discussion board at a time when Ahab has been out of cycle (and he is known to come back in cycles under different names) is almost too coincidental.  If I remember right, Ahab even developed a sock puppet once to defend his Ahab character which looks an awful lot like the Obehave and Obeone relationship.  He comes back in cycles with different names.  I never really expect him to stop.   He is usually pretty easy to pick out because of how unique his language use is (the way you phrase this post is also classic Ahab syntax) .  I agree with Calm though, your engagement on the Eden thread makes me question my suspicion. 

One of Ahab's biggest giveaways was his self-righteous condescension and judgment using very black/white thinking (which shows up in your posts here).  I think you too were called out once for condescension.  Ahab would classically defend his condescension, whereas  you were quick to apologize and restate your intent.  That is not something Ahab would do.    So, if it is you Ahab...well done ol' foe, well done!  Best covert operation yet! 

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Obehave said:

Well whatever it is I wish people would stop saying I am something I'm not.  "I" am not and never have been an Ahab, even if some people think I once played an "Ahab" on the internet. 

Now having said that I'm willing to bet there are still some people who will still think I am an Ahab.

Maybe to make sure you're not being a dishonest person you rationalize in your head that you aren't him in spirit and have taken on a new name because of that?

But really I bet in order for you to stop with new avatars, I'll bet you could be welcomed back under the original Ahab with the mods or maybe I'm plain naive too. The Ahab I fondly remember conversing with many moons ago. 

And if you're truly not him, than I am sorry.

Edited July 1, 2022 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, Obehave said:

I think it's way past the time to get off of this divergent theme in this thread, and all other threads.  Who is or isn't Ahab is not what this or any other thread should be about.  My apologies for my part in being off topic in this and all other threads.

Now I'd like to thank the Supreme Court of the United States of America for what I believe was a very good decision.  I like it when people make what I believe is a good decision.  Well done!!!  Next time I hope they are unanimous in doing the right thing.

Okay, I'll bite, yes and no it's a good thing, all depending on how it gets played out. If it means scaring people into better responsibility in preventing unwanted pregnancies then it's a pretty good thing, but if it does the opposite and gets in between people's choice to not conceive and go childless if they feel that way then what of those to the far right that want to stop contraceptives? Maybe that's a conspiracy theory, not sure. But if they do that they shoot themselves in the foot and cause more abortions, and the kind of abortions that women find ways other than a medical facility. The back alley days. 

And if Roe vs Wade is overturned for good, hopefully something sane will take it's place or each state does a good job of protecting all humans in sensible ways.

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

My friend collected this and gave permission to share:

Maternal mortality in the US is 23.8 per 100,00 live births as of 2020. The risk of maternal mortality for Black women is significantly higher. It’s 55.3 per 100,000. In comparison, driving a car (one of the most dangerous things we do in the US) has a mortality rate of 11.7 per 100,000. 

This is a legitimate statistic to cite in this context.  I acknowledge that.

Meanwhile, the mortality rate for aborted children is essentially 100%.  Do you acknowledge that as a legitimate statistic to cite in this context?

Further, absent force, coercion, deceit, mental defect, or substantial ignorance, avoiding or accepting the risks associated with and arising from participating in sexual behavior is within the capacity of women.  Is that a reasonable point to make in this context?

27 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

However, maternal mortality only tracks to 42 days postpartum. More than 25% of women experience postpartum mental health issues and suicide accounts for 20% of women’s deaths in the first year postpartum. These are not tracked. 

If "{t}hese are not tracked," how is it you are citing statistics about them?

27 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Additionally, maternal mortality rates are likely significantly under reported. 

Would like to see the evidence for this.

27 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Severe maternal morbidity (not mortality) impacts about 1000 wyte women per 100,000 births but is more than twice that for Black women and almost twice the rate for pregnancies in under 20 year olds.

However (again), maternal morbidity is likely extremely underreported as the “most common definition, developed by the CDC, is based on 21 indicators (16 diagnoses and five procedures) identified by an array of diagnostic codes assigned at the time of birth.” IOW if it’s not immediately adjacent to an in-hospital delivery of a baby, it’s not well tracked. 

 I would like to better understand the medical conditions that are characterized as within the parameters of "maternal morbidity."  

Per this website, "{t}he World Health Organization defines maternal morbidity as any health condition attributed to and/or aggravated by pregnancy and childbirth that has negative outcomes to the woman’s well-being."  See also here:

Quote

Maternal health problems related to pregnancy and giving birth can occur during pregnancy, during delivery, and after a pregnancy ends. Some common examples of maternal morbidity include the following²:

• Cardiovascular problems, such as heart disease and blood vessel problems
• Diabetes
• High blood pressure
• Infections, especially from cesarean section
• Blood clots
• Bleeding (sometimes called hemorrhage)
• Anemia (low iron in the blood)
• Nausea and vomiting (sometimes called morning sickness) and hyperemesis gravidarum (severe morning sickness)
• Depression and anxiety

I think women should be made aware of these things, so that they can be reasonably informed about these issues that may arise from their choice to engage in sexual behavior.

27 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

A woman’s risk of being murdered during pregnancy or the year after pregnancy is 16% higher than women who are/were not pregnant. 

1 in 6 women who experience domestic abuse are first abused during pregnancy. 

Terrible things, to be sure.  But the unborn child is not doing them or culpable for them.

27 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Having a child permanently impact’s a woman’s chances of working and the more children she has, the less likely she is to work. It also causes a temporary drop in earnings that takes more than a year to recover from. 

Valid concerns.  But again, absent force, coercion, deceit, mental defect, or substantial ignorance, avoiding or accepting the risks associated with and arising from participating in sexual behavior is within the capacity of women.

Virtually every decision we make involves the weighing of risks.  Some of those risks can be mitigated or avoided entirely. 

For example, I can avoid the risks of alcoholism and liver damage and drunk driving by . . . not drinking alcohol.  There is a cost involved in avoiding that risk (seems like plenty of people enjoy getting drunk, an experience I will likely never have), but that's true of most decisions.  Meanwhile, there are plenty of people who drink responsibly, and that's fine.  But they cannot deny that in choosing to drink they have assumed the risks inherent in that activity.

27 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Women experience a higher rate of poverty than men and women with children experience a higher rate of poverty than women without children. Almost 25% of unmarried women with children are living in poverty. 

Large percentages of such women also don't work and/or failed to graduate from high school.  These three behaviors (having a child outside of , this triad, is pretty well established as materially contributing to remaining in poverty, while avoiding these behaviors (by graduating from high school, getting a full-time job, and waiting until marriage to have kids) virtually guarantees the woman will exit poverty.

27 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Pregnancy, and everything that goes with it, is hazardous.

That overstates things a bit.  

Most of the risks associated with sex are, in 2022, reasonably foreseeable.  One of the most obviously foreseeable risks of participating in sex is . . . pregnancy.  Ipso facto, absent force, coercion, deceit, mental defect, or substantial ignorance, avoiding or accepting the risks associated with and arising from participating in sexual behavior - including pregnancy - is within the capacity of women.

Once pregnancy occurs, the calculus necessarily changes because another person's life is at stake, a life that merits acknowledgement and attention and consideration.

27 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Major social reform and technological (medical) innovation can reduce the hazards. Banning abortion cannot.

The objective of banning or placing restrictions on abortion is mostly not, I think, to "reduce the hazards" of pregnancy, but to preserve the life of the unborn child.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

3 hours ago, Obehave said:

I would say a history of being misunderstood

A position often bemoaned by ahab.

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The objective of banning or placing restrictions on abortion is mostly not, I think, to "reduce the hazards" of pregnancy, but to preserve the life of the unborn child.

Banning abortions shouldn't be taken out of the context of why they happen. If they don't and thus no effort is made to reduce those pressures on women, the weight will only be heavier for them. 

Yesterday a man told me that even if all the resources used to overturn Roe v Wade saved only one child, it would be worth it. But ironically he argued against actually helping women to help reduce abortion. I asked him if he was willing to help help women if it could "save only one child." He didn't answer.

Expanding the context even larger, when people calculate induced abortions, the figure is in all likelihood not even half of all spontaneous abortions. 

Who cares about the spontaneous abortions? Who cares about improving female health and prenatal care to improve pregnancy outcomes and save the unborn who are wanted but lost naturally?

If you SMAC want the prolife side to soften people's hearts as you talk about in the OP, I think you all will struggle to build credibility if you don't make concrete efforts to care for the women who are stuck in untenable circumstances that make them seek abortions, and if you don't make concrete efforts to help improve women's health to improve maternal and fetal outcomes when no abortion is sought.

[pogi]

49 minutes ago, Obehave said:

I think it's way past the time to get off of this divergent theme in this thread, and all other threads.  Who is or isn't Ahab is not what this or any other thread should be about.  My apologies for my part in being off topic in this and all other threads.

Now I'd like to thank the Supreme Court of the United States of America for what I believe was a very good decision.  I like it when people make what I believe is a good decision.  Well done!!!  Next time I hope they are unanimous in doing the right thing.

Happy to move on.  I was just responding to your questions

 

[bluebell]

47 minutes ago, Obehave said:

Can you give me an example of someone sinning in ignorance?  I believe people can do bad or evil things in ignorance but I would not call that sin if done in ignorance of what is good or evil. 

Intentionally killing someone who has done nothing bad or evil to justify being killed is an evil act in itself, but if the person who killed was ignorant of the innocence of the one killed then it wasn't a sin.  The killer may have honestly believed it was good to kill in that instance.

That's fine if you wouldn't call it sin (I think we've already established that you have your own special definitions for words that no one else--except Ahab--has), but the scriptures do.  And without the Atonement, those sins would condemn them, regardless of what they knew about good and bad.

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Obehave said:

I disagree.  I believe to sin is to intentionally do something one believes is not good because one wants to do it regardless.  Or the opposite, to intentionally NOT do something one believes is good because one doesn't want to do it regardless.

Sin requires intent and knowledge of good and evil. 

You say that you disagree, but your words convince me otherwise.  I said that "man cannot sin in ignorance", and you basically just spelled out why that is correct, while stating "I disagree".  

Quote

Evil is what is not good regardless of whether one knows the difference between good and evil.

I am not convinced that "evil" is a thing that exists independently, anymore than "righteousness" is a thing that exists independently. 

1 hour ago, Obehave said:

I agree, but to transgress God's laws is still not good (is evil) even if the one transgressing God's laws doesn't know what is good or evil.

You seem to be using "not good" synonymously with "evil", but it is not the same.  Being sedentary behind a desk all day at work is "not good", but I certainly wouldn't call it "evil".   Not passing a test that one studied rigorously for is "not good", but I wouldn't call it "evil" either.   I could go on, but I think you get the point. 

Edited July 1, 2022 by pogi

[MustardSeed]

5 minutes ago, Obehave said:

What if you never found out you are sinning now and had nobody to tell you? 

Then you will be saved by the atonement.

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, Obehave said:

I take what you say as an expression of your own opinion.  I know of no scriptures stating a person can sin in ignorance.  If a person doesn't know he (or she) is sinning how can he (or she) recognize what he (or she) is about to do but not do it?

You may be sinning right now but not realize it.  How would you know if you were?  What if you never found out you are sinning now and had nobody to tell you?  Or if others were wrong to say you are sinning when you aren't and don't think you are.

   

What MustardSeed said.