Carborendum

Another thing about AI: AI has been developing "companions" to talk to. And the pornographic sector is also using AI to generate images that are photorealistic. This is feeding your youth and young adults with a steady diet of "artificial companionship". Consider the above while reading the following quote: So, I'm thinking that as we see all tools being used to disintigrate the family in any way shape or form, that is when we will see all the calamities. At what point would we consider families in general to be "disintigrated"? What would the signs be? What level of which statistics would we need to see for this prophecy to be fulfilled? We've been told that divorce rates are around of 50%. That is no longer true. Fewer people are getting married in the first place. So the divorce rate is around 30% to 35% now. NOTE: These are only first marriages. I can't seem to find a reliable number for multiple marriages. Think about it: People are simply not getting married anymore instead of getting married and then divorced to the point that this statistic has shifted. That's wild. That means that we have fewer broken families. We just have broken "groups of people who were never a family in the first place." All I can do is raise my own kids to value the family. And so far so good. But whom can they marry? My eldest got really lucky and found a wonderful daughter of Zion to marry. My next two kids are home from their missions. And most others seems to have their minds on careers instead of family. And these are the people in the YSA ward. My daughter is smart, beautiful, funny, hard-working, and lives her faith. She's the ideal woman. But she can't seem to find anyone that will stick with her for very long. I have no idea why. I had hypothesized that she was just a bit too smart for all the guys that she dated. We even got some inside scoop which sort of indicated that. But I don't know if that makes much sense. My son is looking for a wife. But he doesn't have much success with women. They all seem to friendzone him after just a few dates. They give him a chance. But they just aren't feeling it with him. I'm not sure why. My next son returns home from his mission in a couple of weeks. And he has the RIZZ all over the place. His problem will not be "finding" a woman. His problem will be finding a career path before a dozen women mob him. I just want my children to have happy, faith-filled marriages. One down. Six to go.

Well, let's take a look at these verses: Forgive me, but it certainly sounds like "glory added upon our heads forever and ever." So, why are you find it objectionable? Context matters. That last phrase which you ignored gives a new perspective to the verse, does it not? The "glory" spoken of here is not the vague notion of power or radiating light. It is the worship/love/devotion that we offer to the Lord and none else. We do not worship idolatrous gods. It may take some understanding of the Hebrew writing style. But phrases like this are used by repeating the same idea in different words to clarify & emphasize. If that is the meaning of glory (you brought up the citation) then it CAN increase as more people worship Him.

Welcome, Fiddle. That is quite a long post. Forgive me if I only address a few items. Is a marraige transactional? It certainly can be. But how can you tell the difference? How many of us would look at a happy couple and determine that their marriage is just a legal transaction wherein shared property is utilized for better economy in the siring of offspring so they can be raised into adulthood to take care of us in our old age? Do I work 50 to 60 hr/wk so my wife will have sex with me and clean my house? That would be transactional. It would be cheaper if I just went around clubbing. Do I sire and raise children and care for them because I'm hoping they will take care of me in my old age? I have an iRA and an HSA. That's a whole lot cheape While we certainly "do" things for each other, marriage is about a relationship. All these things we do in a healthy marraige are motivated by love, cooperation, a sense of teamwork, and a sincere desire to adhere to correct principles. We do this out of a sense of love and a desire to be happy. On the flip side, what can be said of a couple who are always fighting? What about a couple who is ok with simply living together so they can get government benefits for fatherless homes? So, if you think of commandments as "jumping through hoops" you completely misunderstand the purpose of commandments (or ordinances, for that matter). I've been pondering this for a while -- whether I agreed or disagreed. And while I get the point you're "trying" to make (at least I've made an honest effort at it) I disagree with your assessment here. It has some incorrect assumptions. it is not "grace that drives the relationship." We form an initial relationship. And that relationship grows. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong: You seem to say that the Restored Gospel tells us that we "earn heaven" by our obedience. No. There is no way we can "earn" our way to heaven. It is not about paying a certain debt. Only Christ can do that. And He has. So, what is left for us? For most of the protestant world, it is just about "believing in Christ." Yes and no. What exactly do we mean by believing in Christ? Or the more common wording I hear from evanglicals "accept Christ into your heart." That sounds great and all. But if you were to try to define that, what does it entail? It is not about jumping through hoops. It is not about checking off the boxes. It is about "becoming." When my children were young, I raised and taught them to do some things "because it's good for you." One cannot teach a 6 year old about vitamins, minerals , polyphenos, flavinoids, etc. You just tell them it's good for you. Only after they've matured sufficient to understand, do I explain the principles behind it all. The idea is that we obey commandments at first because we want to be obedient. We want to be obedient because we love God. And eventually, we understand the principle and internalize it. Then we begin to see the wisdom in the commandments. It was the obedience that changed us. When we obey commandments becuase they are commandments, we eventually become the people who can now understand the reasons for the commandments. And when we understand, we are happy we obeyed our of our love and respect for the Lord. So, the proper sequence is: Hope helps us recognize the goodness and wisdom of God. Faith & Charity provide the motivating force to obey commandments. When we obey, we receive the Holy Ghost and wisdom to understand why commandments are so important. Then we go through another cycle with full understanding. This is called growth. IOW, we become the children the Lord is raising us to be. It is not the act that saves us. We tend to emphasize obedience to commandments because in our childhood we do not obey because of understanding. It is our love of Christ that provides the desire to obey. The thing that most protestants will accuse us of is simply checking the boxes. No. And action without faith is vain. It has no meaning. Faith without works is dead. It's just words with no meaning. Faith-based obedience allows us to grow. Many believe we are a religion that believes works (ordinances) will save us. That's completely antithetical to our core doctrines. Others believe that we receive grace in our ignorance. No. Salvation comes from choosing Christ. And we cannot faithfully choose something we know nothing about. Infinity is a difficult concept. In mathematics: ∞ + 1 = ∞. Also: ∞ + ∞ = ∞. That is a basic law of mathematics. Does it increase? If we said it grows or doesn't grow, we'd be right either way.

So... He really did have a white horse?

This has nothing to do with calling down fire and brimstone to destroy those who refused the message. It is an ordinance for us to perform as a declaration that we made an honest effort. And the people utterly refused. All ordinances are recorded in heaven. So, it will be brought up on judgement day. What effect it will have on that day that is any different than simply rolling credits, I have no idea. But it must mean something, or it wouldn't be in scriptures. I wonder if this is also some benefit to us who perform it. It may be similar to the washing of hands which was not a Roman tradition. It was Pilate (yet again) expressing his knowledge of Jewish tradition (Deut 21). This ordinance will be remembered. And we cannot be held responsible for the fact that this man will die the spiritual death.

There are always going to be a small percentage that will go against the grain. But this whole thing about COVID was WOBAR.

Mormon abridged the Large Plates of Nephi. He also attached the Small Plates of Nephi to the overall package. Where were they physically located in relation to the other plates? I'm not aware of any mention other than they were part of the package. But the descriptions we received from all the witnesses indicate that the plates were all of the same dimensions. So, it would look like one continuous book to the casual observer. The 116 pages were taken from Mormon's abridgement. They covered the same time period as the small plates. Joseph Smith called that record "The Book of Lehi." After the 116 pages were lost and after Joseph received the power to translate again, he began translation again which include the small plates. Joseph's translation, while inspired, did largely follow a translation process similar to us looking up words in a bilingual dictionary. The revelation/inspiration came when there are some words with ambiguous meaning, or are not easily translatable into another language. Part of the preparation of the printer's manuscript was to alter the grammar/syntax, and overall word usage to make sense of the sentence in English. If you've ever translated in a language that you're only somewhat fluent in, that's what it was like. Joseph's additional prophetic insight was to choose the best way to express the ideas in modern English. We know that the process was pretty detailed because Joseph would ask questions. Examples: Joseph couldn't pronounce the name Sariah. And he spelled it out as he asked Emma how to pronounce it. Then he continued translation. So, apparently, it was detailed enough for him to have the English spelling of proper nouns. He asked Emma if Jerusalem had walls around it. She told him that it did. He was relieved because he thought for a moment that he had been deceived. He was surprised to discover that fact as he read the translated words. When translating with Oliver, they stopped at 3 Ne 11:22 regarding the "power to baptize." He and Oliver wondered at the doctrine that one needed power/authority to baptize. Thus, we received D&C 13.

That's where I am. I had no problem with a lot of vaccines. Some I didn't see the need. But the big deal about COVID was the denials and lies and misdirection. I was actually planning on getting the J&J vaccine for my whole family. But just as we were making appointments, we found out that it had been pulled in favor of Pfizer. When I eventually found out that the J&J vaccine was pulled because of the mortality rate, I felt relieved I didn't get it. Then I found out that the mortality rate for the J&J vaccine was LOWER than the Pfizer vaccine. I was/am really P!$$d. I'm not anti-vaccine. I just didn't think I could trust a brand-new technology that has only had the bare minimum govt required testing. The field trials were the actual enforcement of the vaccine. We had no real-life track record to speak of. The information was still coming in during the pandemic. And we're just supposed to embrace a new technology? I wanted the J&J because the traditional technology has a long track record. Now, the data seems to show that the mortality/complication rate is somewhat comparable to the limited data we received on the J&J vaccine. So, why did they ban one and allow the other? It was this level of secrecy that made me suspicious. And I can't understand why others weren't also suspicious of being FORCED to use it without proper justification or trial history. Today, my whole family has now had COVID, so we're naturally immune. And yet, they still claim that we need the vaccine on top of natural immunity. That's bollocks. As long as they keep treating vaccines like they did during COVID, yes. Just be up front and let us make our own decisions. The great majority of people will accept a vaccine if it is of our own free will. I just hated the deception and the force used.

In mortality, there are many things which the Lord blesses us with. Some of those blessings include some level of power. As in all things spiritual, knowledge is power. Seership is an attribute of Divinity. It does not make one divine. Joseph Smith grew in knowledge and understanding. At some point, his "peep stone" was not just about finding a needle in a haystack. It became a tool for discovering great treasures of knowledge only knowable through Divinity. At the point when he received this gift, he became a "seer" in the spiritual sense. And he continued to grow in that role. There appears to be a graduation of this gift which can be shorthanded thusly. Peep stone Seer Stone Urim & Thummim Simply seeking and asking allows one to access divine knowledge. (The all-seeing eye). Joseph grew in knowledge to become this top level. He no longer needed the seer stone or the Urim and Thummim. Most of us probably couldn't even use a seer stone to find that needle. I've often wondered what we're actually saying when we sustain our leaders as Prophets, Seers, & Revelators. It is the Seer aspect that I question. What level? How often? I recognize that the Proclamation to the World was prophetic. Was it just a bunch of wise men who saw the patterns of society and started to warn us? Was it revelation similar to how we all receive revelation, but it was for the whole world? Or was it given to them as an aspect of Divinity? The more I ponder, the more am I convinced that it was an act of a Seer (or 15 Seers). But the world is not ready to accept such abilities in some rickety old man who can't even walk without help. So, I think there is a lot going on that we're not aware of -- which the Brethren don't publicize. But we'd do well to listen more earnestly to the messages given in General Conference. Why is it different from God's power? I'd say that "different" may not be the right word. It is an aspect of God's power. And only God has the power of God. As priesthood holders, we may be instruments to use the power. But we don't actually "own" it. Any gift, talent, ability, power from the Lord seems to be innate in many cases. But the truth is that the Lord can take it all away at any time.

The names Joshua and Jesus are the same name (Hebrew and Aramaic respectively). Either spelling in English, it was common male name in Ancient Israel. But it is highly unlikely that the name "Jesus" would have been written in an ancient HEBREW text. I'll even posit an idea that will throw you all for a loop: It may even be possible that Jesus was not literally His mortal given name. The name literally means "Jehovah Saves". So, it could have been a name-title, as so many individuals of special mission had in the OT times AFTER they became adults. Of course, this becomes a moot point since this is the name by which we know Him today. But it is an interesting quirk. Beyond that, the first time the name Jesus appears in the BoM is Notice that he specifically says that an ANGEL TOLD HIM THE NAME. He received it through revelation. And it appears that until that moment, Nephi was unfamiliar with the actual name of the Savior that would be used. Christ is not a Greek word. It is the Anglicized version of the Greek Christos (Χριστός) which simply means Annointed One. The Hebrew word is Mashiach (Anglicized: Messiah). So, both Christ and Messiah are correctly considered English words which are loan words from Greek and Hebrew respectively. And in accordance with my point of interest, it may very well be that Nephi was given the Hebrew TITLE by which He would be known, which would have been translated as "The Lord's Annointed Savior, the Son of God." Jeshua-Mashiach, Ben-El (or Bene-Elohim). Even if there were truly no mention of the Son of God in the Old Testament. When TRANSLATED the name/title could have easily taken on many forms. And Jesus Christ would have been a perfectly acceptable ENGLISH translation. People make a big deal about it because they have no idea how translations work, especially when working with an ancient language translated nearly 200 years ago with a style of English that we would find understandable, but rather awkward. And many words have expeienced semantic shift since the early 1800s. Bottom line: None of this surprises me.

Ah. I see. You don't know how the money is divided up. The chairman of Walmart makes a bit over $500k/yr The other 11 executives make slightly less. But to be conservative, let's say they all make $500k/yr Total = $6Million/yr Divide that up between the 2.1 million employees = About $3/year. Yeah, that will make a HUGE difference in the average employee salary. Every walmart employee is given corporate stock as part of their salary. This means that they also get the dividends from that stock. The longer they work there, the more stock they get, the more money they make. This is not the place to complain about how capitalism is crooked. NOOOOOOOOO!!! We do not. I'm hoping you're already familiar with the economic term "public good". Your comments and verbiage you're using indicates that you are not considering this principle in your resoning. Most people think "public good" means that you do something for the good of the public. NOT!!! When supplying labor and materials for usable public goods, it is necessary for government to go to the free market to find the best source for what the government needs. That's just plain old free market. What you call "corporate welfare" may actually earn that title. And we're against it just as much as you. But as long as it is a free will exchange and all is above board for something the appropriate process of government has determined is needed, this is no different than you going shopping for your groceries. That's how infrastructure is built. That's how our military gets armed. Do you feel like you're participating in corporate welfare when you go shopping? I'm having trouble following this line of reasoning. Musk developed a better product for cheaper than any competitor. Do welfare recipients "compete" for a contract? Yes, we put men on the moon in the 60s. It's perplexing to me why you think that we don't have new technology. The technology we have today is much more complex with more capabilities than in the 60s. The fact you think otherwise really shows a blind spot in your understanding here. Musk didn't "need government assistance". He put his first rocket (Falcon 1) into orbit prior to the first government contract through SpaceX. Have you heard of anyone else doing that? I believe Andrew Carnegie did something analogous back in his day. But no, he didn't "need government assistance." If you want to make a point about corporate welfare, yes, absolutely, there are plenty of examples. And we're just as much against them as you are. But SpaceX isn't one of them. Once he proved he could do it (all on his own dime) the government realized that his design was more efficient, economical, and with faster turn-around than anyone else had. He provided a service for which he competitively bid against other firms. His service was better, and cost less. Why would you consider this is a bad thing?

Again, weirdness is going on with Canada. And I'm getting mixed messages. Does anyone really know what is going on? The last I heard: Canada made a deal with Greenland before Trump did. Canada decided to restrict our road to Alaska. Alberta is still kinda hanging in limbo. Is any of this true? Any confirmations? I'm hearing a lot, but not able to verify much.

This is where both sides gets this wrong. 1. Democracy is an umbrella term which indicates that the masses have some say in how the government goes about passing and enforcing laws. This includes both the election of representatives as well as direct consent to new laws (e.g.: propositions). 2. Another definition of democracy (when the context is specifically describing the difference between republics and democracies) is that a "direct" democracy is where the population votes on any measure that effects the entire population. EVERY SINGLE TIME. So, I disagree with Republicans who make a big deal and say that "We don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic." I also disagree with Democrats who say that whenever an elected official does something we disagree with, we can take them out of office immediately "because we live in a democracy." While there are some jurisdictions that allow for an immediate recall, there are conditions that restrict it somewhat. And with the President, the Constitution already addresses that.

Yes, it has... during this administration. And one of the reasons why is that we're cutting away at socialism. Yes, that is a public good. So, not necessarily socialism. And there are some privately run fire departments that do a better job by focusing on prevention rather than remedy. This is the quintessential example of a public good right behind military and police. So, again, not really socialism. And yet again, private versions do a better job. Lol. Not the best argument to get a conservative to consider socialism as a good thing. Are you joking? You're calling the post office a good example of a socialist program? Once upon a time it was necessary because there was no practical alternative. But now??? I believe we've had this discussion already. Disagree. If it were run as a watchdog (basically being the "police" of how food is made) maybe. But it has gone FAARRR beyond that. Ever heard of the 2001 Roadless Rule? They recently rescinded it because the greenies that imposed it didn't realize that we need roads in forests to provide services such as controlled burning, debris removal, manage wildlife, etc. And it causes the ecosystem to die. And then there is the recent chicken epidemic. I think that was the USDA wasn't it? I could be mistaken. It may be another govt. department. I don't think any educated capitalist would argue that private enterprise is immune to corruption. But the self-correcting mechanisms either keep it down to a minimum, OR cause the enterprise to fail. And when it fails, there are alternatives that come to pick up the pieces and offer new jobs to those ground-level workers who are out of work. Government has no such mechanisms or alternatives. While I'm sure you think DOGE was an evil group, it really did get rid of a LOT of corruption (incl. waste fraud and abuse) in government. It's not really clear what you're arguing here. From what I gather, people who are gainfully employed are able to get money from the government that is usually reserved for people who can't work or can't find work. But I get the feeling you're saying something else?? What I get out of the comment is that the government offers a very public and very easy way to fleece our tax dollars. Again, I'm not sure that this is a winning argument for you. You're talking about how government spends money. By definition this exchange is a socialist endeavor. Every venture in new developments/technologies requires trial and error. That's in any venture into the NEW and ORIGINAL. The fact that his end product is so much better that he can perform better at a lower cost should say that this is a GOOD thing. But for some reason you think this is a failure of capitalism?