User Profile: Alex


Member Since: May 11, 2011


123 To page: Go
  • November 14, 2015 at 12:12pm

    I’ll tell you what I’m doing. I will help my children get a college education ONLY if it is a step to professionalize themselves in a field that doesn’t involve the social sciences, where they’ll probably end up dumber than when they came in. My children know this and they are at the top of their class. They need to be able to come out of their bachelor’s degree with something they can DO, and support a family with. If their major will not allow them that, then I will steer them into a trade like perhaps an electrician, where they are in high demand, and can fetch decent money. I will not subsidize the giving of my own self the middle finger, by supporting an “education” that makes them a pawn of the state: demanding and worthless.

  • [6] November 10, 2015 at 6:13pm

    I’ve gotten to the point that I feel absolutely no obligation, moral or otherwise, to give a flying crap about whether my views on any subject matter are considered racist or not racist. I blaspheme racial politics altogether. Some of the souls I’ve seen that fancy themselves as the most racially sensitive are some of the most miserable people I have ever known. Being racially sensitive means NOTHING. All that I care about is my relationship with God, and how that translates into how I treat my fellow man. That’s it. No more.

  • [1] November 7, 2015 at 11:00am


    That’s not what I said, nor what I implied. We are NOT forcing them to have to make those decisions as minors, which is why we have this policy. Look, as a general policy, we ALREADY require parental permission for minors to be baptized, regardless of whether their parents are gay or straight. By preventing them from being baptized in this case, we are taking that decision out of their hands while an impressionable youth, so they won’t have to deal with that kind of dissonance they will face. The parents will have to answer for the sins of their children based on their poor example, and not the children.

  • [3] November 7, 2015 at 8:33am

    The Bible is a library of sacred scripture that gives some indication and direction on governing the Lord’s church, but it was not compiled as an administrative document. We in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe in continuing revelation. Through experience and direction from the Lord, we in the church have a handbook of instructions for the administration of the church in all parts of the world. As apostles like Peter, James, John, and Paul governed the church in ancient times, so prophets and apostles govern the church under the direction of the Lord in our day and time. We consider their pronouncements to be authoritative and adapted to the situations that the saints in modern times find themselves in.

    Responses (1) +
  • [4] November 7, 2015 at 7:20am

    Elder D. Todd Christopherson of the Quorum of the Twelve had this to say,

    “We recognize that same-sex marriages are now legal in the United States and some other countries,” he said, “and that people have the right if they choose to enter into those, and we understand that, but that’s not a right that exists in the church. That’s the clarification.”

    He said the new policy restricting children of same-sex couples from baptism until they are 18 originated from “a desire to protect children in their innocence and in their minority years.”

    “We don’t want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the church are very different,” he said.

    (Deseret News)

  • [2] November 6, 2015 at 10:29pm

    The sin is NOT transferred to the children. Not being able to be baptized is not the same thing as rejecting baptism, or being excommunicated from the church. We believe that ALL will have the opportunity to receive ALL the blessings of the Gospel, whether in this life or the next, including them. If a person is not able to receive Christ, he does not become responsible for his acts in relation to his commitment to Christ, until he is capable of accepting or rejecting the covenant. Minor children of same-sex marriages who are not able to join the church will not be condemned until or unless they are able to make that decision for themselves.

    Therefore, it is not a condemnation. They are under grace. It is merciful to withheld until they have a better opportunity. Living in a home of sin like they do does not provide an environment conducive for them to live the Gospel in a family setting. That will change someday, and when it does, we will be happy to see them baptized, if they choose to. To put it in perspective, most people in this world have not been able to receive Christ in their lifetimes through no fault of their own. Similarly, we believe that the mercy and grace of Christ extend beyond the grave to a time in the next world, when circumstances allow them all the blessings and gifts of God.

    Responses (2) +
  • [-2] November 3, 2015 at 5:59pm

    The day of decision is always now, and always will be. You cannot remain neutral and uninvested in the battle for your soul and be safe, because eventually the choice will be made for you. If you choose to delay and procrastinate the day of your returning to God, you will discover you have cheated yourself. Turning to God will ALWAYS be easier now than later.

    Prayerfully read the Bible or the Book of Mormon today, and go before God, asking Him where you stand. You will find the guidance and peace that will help you to change your course.

  • October 28, 2015 at 2:37pm

    While I believe all alleged criminal and/or fraudulent activity should be prosecuted without regard to religion, I am quite uncomfortable shutting down any religion on the basis that its members have committed crimes. It is one thing to prosecute crimes against evenly administered laws, and it is quite another thing to police and ban speech, conscience, and thought. I don’t care how wrong, silly, or misguided their beliefs may appear to most people. The religious freedom guarantees that would protect YOUR free exercise of conscience, assembly, and religion, also protects theirs as well. You can’t tamper with their rights without tampering with your own.

    Responses (1) +
  • [7] October 22, 2015 at 1:48am

    While I have not had an NDE personally, I have met a few that have. They have no rational reason to lie about their experience. I suppose it is easier for me to believe their testimony, since I have already had spiritual experiences that I cannot in good conscience dismiss as merely a product of my own mind. Often I read arguments on the Blaze about whether God exists. People go back and forth, everybody wanting to “prove” their opinion one way or the other. To me, it is all a meaningless academic exercise.

    I stand firm in my experience and conviction that there is reality beyond what science can explain. I would urge you not to take my or anybody else’s word for it, but rather to seek God with all your heart and soul. I know that He answers prayers in a way that is unmistakable. I also have learned by actual spiritual experiences that Jesus Christ lives, and that He forgives sins. This might sound crazy to you, unless you have experienced it. When His love penetrates your soul, you have an actual knowledge of something that you cannot prove, but it is just as real.

  • [1] September 9, 2015 at 7:39pm

    While I respect and recognize the defense of traditional marriage, and the condemnation of homosexuality on biblical grounds being put forth by Evangelicals, I find that the foundation of Evangelical doctrine on the issue is less robust than that of the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Mormon traditions. In these latter three, marriage between a man and a woman is not only recognized scripturally, but is also a sacrament of the church. The doctrine of marriage in the Mormon tradition even goes a step further, where the most exalted state of man and woman in the afterlife is to be eternally united to each other and to God. In short, marriage between man and woman is hard-wired into our doctrine and practice. It is non-negotiable.

    Responses (1) +
  • September 9, 2015 at 4:59pm


    I’m well aware of the power that the Catholic Church has wielded at times in history. Heaven forbid the Catholic Church (or any other group, religious or non-religious) ever has that kind power of the sword. I’m not even a Catholic, though. I’m a Mormon. Catholics and Mormons don’t agree on everything, but we do have a common understanding of the concept of authority residing in the church, rather than in the scriptures alone, as authoritative as those scriptures are. Of course, to both you Evangelicals and Catholics, I am a heretic, so touché.

  • [-5] September 9, 2015 at 3:44pm

    History has shown us that Sola Scriptura virtually guarantees the disintegration or fragmentation of groups who espouse it, and yet even after the countless times this cycle has played out since Luther, those whose doctrine was born of the Protestant reformation are still shocked, when it happens yet again. In saying this, I don’t mean any ill-will towards Protestants and Evangelicals, nor do I impugn their motives, but I can’t help but notice this continuous pattern. You apparently have recognized the this as well.

    Responses (4) +
  • [-4] September 3, 2015 at 6:55pm

    I respect Davis for being willing to go to jail for her beliefs. Really, I do, and if she weren’t representing the government, I would be on board with what she is doing. However, regardless of how much I vehemently disagree with gay marriage (and I do), as a county clerk, I am obligated to carry out the law as it stands. That means that I am required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. As the clerk, you are representing the state or county as the case may be. You are not representing yourself, as you would be in the private domain. In my opinion, this is not the place for civil disobedience credibly to be exercised. I know this offends people, whom I normally am in agreement with.

    In short, we can move to change the law, but for the time being, this is the law the clerk is required to carry out.

    Responses (2) +
  • [1] August 17, 2015 at 6:24pm

    Wrong. Glenn is merely indicating that he will die before he gives in. It’s called civil disobedience. The government is the one who is threatening the religious beliefs of others, not Glenn. In that sense, it is the government that is more like the “religion of peace”. Glenn has no government to enforce his beliefs on others.

    Responses (1) +
  • August 14, 2015 at 3:11pm


    I’m having a tough time believing anyone who claims to know Jesus, but doesn’t believe in a God who speaks to His children, besides what is said in the Bible. Deeply skeptical.

  • [1] August 11, 2015 at 3:06pm

    My five favorites:

    Ted Cruz
    Rand Paul
    Scott Walker
    Ben Carson
    Carly Fiorina

    Donald started in my top 5, but has dropped out.

  • [6] June 26, 2015 at 2:23pm

    The problem with living in fear of becoming a relic is that you end up never really living, and the life you do have is void of principle. You don’t really own your own soul. Why on earth would I want to be on the cutting edge of this dopey movement? No thanks. You can have your gay marriage. I sleep well at night knowing that I had no part in it. If I have to go against my convictions to avoid someone thinking I’m a relic, then I never had any to begin with. Besides, being told you’re a relic means about as much as being told by playground kids that you have cooties.

  • [1] June 25, 2015 at 4:12pm


    Amen. My point about six year terms and term limits had less to do with the fact that the Senators were to be chosen for 6 year terms (which I knew), and more to do with the fact that Madison designed the House to have 2-year terms for precisely the reason that he didn’t want them to have 4-6. He knew what happens when you get legislators in Congress for more than 2 years without having to go back for reelection, and we are seeing that being played out today. All politics was meant to be local.

    A 6-year term for a Senator pre-17th amendment is perfectly fine. He is less exposed to the pressures of special interests, since he must not answer not to the whole electorate, but to a finite number of state legislators. It is harder for lobbyists to exert undue influence on the process this way, since they have to go through the local state legislative layer to get to the Senator.

  • [6] June 25, 2015 at 2:40pm

    Let us reset to the Constitution, but eliminate the 17th Amendment. The 17th amendment was the abomination which took the election of Senators out of the hands of the state legislatures and made them directly elected. This made the House and Senate a distinction without a difference, except that the Senators now had 6 year terms and not 2. Before this amendment was passed, the states exerted a check on Federal power through the Senate, as well as oversight over the Federal judiciary and Supreme Court. The Senators were the watchmen of the 10th amendment. You will notice that all the greatest expansions of the Federal government occurred after the 17th amendment was passed. You will also notice that term limits are a huge problem precisely because of the Senators, but not the Congressmen. I say, get rid of the 17th, and you won’t need an amendment on term limits.

    Responses (2) +
  • [3] June 19, 2015 at 12:15pm

    The man is the head of the household, but the woman is the neck. (Courtesy of My Big Fat Greek Wedding)

    In reply to the contribution Christian Marriage: Why My Wife Should Obey Me

    Responses (3) +
123 To page: Go
Restoring Love