Recent Comments

  • Morgan Deane on Delighting in bloodshed: “A Nazi analogy is still a Nazi analogy, dressing it up with personal sentiment doesn’t make it less lazy. And using it to defend narco?terrorists just so you can take another swing at Trump is embarrassing. If you weren’t so locked into partisan theatrics, you might see this more like Moroni (whom you quoted but obviously haven’t read): someone who fights unapologetically for his people’s safety. True, that means the messy business of killing people, but being proud of defending your country isn’t bloodlust. (Alma 60:36) It certainly doesn’t mean clutching pearls because some of us aren’t mourning the deaths of terrorists. Honestly, get a grip.Dec 12, 16:29
  • Tom on Delighting in bloodshed: “It’s not about oil, nor is it about regime change. It’s about distraction. Think about what Trump is trying to distract voters from.Dec 12, 15:53
  • Last Lemming on Delighting in bloodshed: “I saw someone (not a crackpot) argue on Facebook that the whole boatsinking thing was about oil. I pushed back for a bit, but then we captured an oil tanker, so I’m not pushing back on that any more.Dec 12, 15:24
  • RLD on Delighting in bloodshed: “These vigilante killings will have an insignificant effect on the drug trade–Venezuela is not even a very big player in it. So what’s the real motivation here? Yes, there’s a geopolitical component, trying to pressure Maduro to step down. Much as I hate what Chavismo has done to Venezuela and would welcome a return to democracy, does anyone think the “America First” President is doing this for the benefit of the Venezuelan people, or that a military intervention will make them better off? Have we learned nothing from Iraq? But I think the primary motivation is so that cable news viewers in rural areas hit hard by drug addiction can say “Look–Trump is strong. He’s making the bad guys suffer who have caused so much suffering for us.” Never mind that it won’t stop their own suffering–it’s pure vengeance. Or maybe the main goal is to make the cable news viewer in the White House feel strong. Either way, it’s delighting in bloodshed and the implications are dire.Dec 12, 12:48
  • Mortimr on Delighting in bloodshed: ““. . . [these] are invitations to be part of the winning side. These contemporary propaganda films also invite supporters to defend the indefensible, to enjoy seeing others’ degradation, and to delight in bloodshed.” Extremely well said! So, you’re saying tat we’re looking at the most heinous of spiritual crimes brought about by extremely successful propaganda that galvanizes millions of people by imprinting on identity, and re-tooling values. Why is this not a major spiritual concern for modern-day Prophets, seers and revelators? This is not mere politics or politics as usual, this is about our souls, our fellow countrymen/women, nations, and the world. This is about morals, ethics and values. Why are the watchmen on the tower not sounding every alarm with every living breath? Why are we dwelling on chicken-soup-for-the-soul like feel-good stories of yester-year when THIS threat goes unmentioned? I am done listing to excuses about us being “above” politics. How can we be “above” politics if blood-thirst, murder, conquest, power and oppression are the actual topics? How can we continue to sit behind our privilege, sun-bathing in Jesus’ happy smiling face, and excuse the things in your post as just the consequences of our collective comfort? I’ve recently heard about “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” by Ursula K. Le Guin. It’s a philosophical short story used as a way to test ethics. It’s about a beautiful, utopian city whose happiness depends on the perpetual misery of one imprisoned child. Every citizen learns the truth as they come of age. Most accept the arrangement. Some cannot and they leave Omelas. How can we look away from the blood-thirst, the corruption, the vindictiveness and cruelty, and think it is just a necessary evil for our collective prosperity and power?Dec 12, 12:34
  • John Taber on Delighting in bloodshed: “When I lived in Nashville as a child, we made frequent visits to Stones River Battlefield Park, near Murfreesboro. At about the same time, I read in Book of Mormon Stories about the Jaredites (particularly in Ether 15) fighting by day, and sleeping by their swords by night, literally to the last man. I remember once at Stones River reading a display about the battle, again both sides fighting by day and sleeping by their weapons at night. (It was a three-day battle). My mind came to the similarities, thinking this was just like the Jaredites. A simple answer came, “Yes”. During the 2003 Iraq War there was plenty of discussion rhetoric in my ward, often from the pulpit, about how that particular war was necessary. (Some even misquoted Pres. Hinckley to say the whole “War on Terrorism” was too.) In the YW room, there was even a picture labeled “Peace” of a solider holding a weapon. Needless to say (I had moved in Christmas Eve 2002), it took me a long time to feel a part of things. One thing I regret is not posting my (2004) wedding invitation on the bulletin board. Some families didn’t come because they thought they wouldn’t be welcome.Dec 12, 08:22
  • Jonathan Green on Delighting in bloodshed: ““Murder is bad” is hardly an original thought. I don’t know why it has to be said, but here we are.Dec 12, 07:11
  • ji on Delighting in bloodshed: “Thank you for sharing your thoughts.Dec 12, 07:01
  • Stephen C. on Latter-day Saint Book Review: The Doors of Perception, by Aldous Huxley: “Mark Ashurst McGee: Unfortunately, I’ve already returned the book so I’m not sure about pagination, but it’s sort an of extended essay length work, so it should be easy to catch his discussion. Jonathan Green: Oh right. Yes, to be clear to everyone, this post is not in any way a subtle hint that Joseph Smith was a shroomer. Ivan Wolfe: Yeah, for somebody prone to making such grand sweeping statements his lack of footnotes is quite conspicuous.Dec 11, 16:14
  • Ivan Wolfe on Latter-day Saint Book Review: The Doors of Perception, by Aldous Huxley: “I have had around half a dozen Medieval historians tell me variations on this: “Whenever Foucault talks about the Middle Ages, it’s best to assume he’s not just wrong, but completely divorced from reality.”Dec 11, 15:58