Leaderboard

For the record, yes, the video's title card is clickbaity, but IMO the video is still worth watching.

1. We have always, starting with the first hymnbook and in every one since then, used songs written by other Christians. 2. "To people everywhere we simply say, 'You bring with you all the good that you have and let us add to it. That is the principle on which we work.'" - Gordon B. Hinckley 3. Are we supposed to reject Biblical truth and injunctions just because other Christians also recognize them?

I think your missing the point of the jab. Nice or not, he's saying absolutely horrible things of those who like Trump here. Claiming they worship Trump instead of Christ? That a downright despicable accusation and an extremely underhanded attack. And yet, I agree with you. I don't think he despises anyone. Which is why I made the jab. Because it should be obvious to anyone not afflicted by derangement that those who like Trump here do not despise anyone either.

This is me pretty recently. The missionaries in my ward really had no idea, but they did ask me to give people rides places, and that ended up leading to a ton of good for me. One of the reasons for that was feeling legitimately helpful to people. If there's something you genuinely need help with, asking a struggling friend for help with it could do them a lot of good. I'm not going to say it's the case for everyone 100% of the time, but it absolutely was for me.

I've spent 25+ years discussing religion with folks online. I was part of the amateur apologetics wave of the 2000-2010's that pretty much ended the antimormon book publishing and speaker-fee-generating industry. The only things that are even close to being successful, are a genuine dedication to open transparency, a willingness to learn and grow in opinions, and a willing commitment to loving my neighbor even if he hates/fears/distrusts/attacks me. I've made maybe a dozen or two actual impacts on folks' thinking, all of them by just responding honestly and lovingly to criticisms and issues. Never really trying to persuade, or win. That's online. In real life, I do not seek to talk to anyone about the Gospel and BoM. I will, however, answer questions like "are you doing anything fun this weekend" and "got any plans". When I think about 'successful', I don't think about people getting baptized. I think about it as representing myself and my faith in a transparently honest light, to people who are either wary or critical, or honestly couldn't care less. Folks who tend to get defensive or anxious when talk of religion comes up. Or go on the offensive when anything LDSocentric is mentioned. So from that perspective, I try to talk in terms those folks would find relatable. Lighthearted, self effacing humor tends to go a long way. "How was your weekend?" "Well, us crazy Mormons think it's fun to go to church 5 times across 2 days twice a year, for a total of 10 hours total. So I had a blast!" 90% of any successes I've had, came by by learning LGBT lingo, evangelical/atheist beliefs, and church criticisms, and then expressing common ground and agreement and empathy and understanding whenever possible. I think humans in general are more open and willing to listen to the other side of the story, when they're talking to someone who doesn't get defensive or shut down or fight back when crap gets brought up. These folks come to me when they've got a question or a pain, and then I talk gospel. That's when the missionary work happens - when they invite it in. And, in real life, I've had the honor and privilege of baptizing both my kiddos, and participating or attending in half a dozen others.

We don't entirely disagree with you: The Lord appears to use the word "church" in two ways: one to mean The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Church), and the other to mean those who repent and come unto Christ (the church). Some Latter-day Saints might disagree with me, but I think this is similar to "the body of Christ" idea found in the New Testament that a lot of Christians cite. Where we diverge from other Christians is in the idea that the Church doesn't matter, as long as you're of the church. The church is a starting point to us - a good place to be if you know nothing more. But the Church is where you want to be headed. Also, just yesterday I saw evidence of something @Vort taught us on here long ago: Christ's sheep know His voice. Our job isn't to convince them, it's to let them hear His voice. (I read the account online of an investigator who felt overwhelmed by the Spirit just holding the Book of Mormon - clearly one of His sheep. Which isn't to say that all of His sheep recognize His voice the way this person did; it's simply an extreme example.) On an unrelated note: I'm glad you're still with us, @Jamie123 (as opposed to being tossed in jail). I hear some pretty scary things about the UK speech-police and consequences of uncontrolled immigration there these days.

It is my wish that we learn to listen to each other. I started this thread because I do not think it is possible to have a conversation with many good people that think Trump is the Anti-Christ. The fellow I referenced in my initial post is a friend, an ultra-conservative, stanch republican and a stalwart temple LDS. What I do not understand is why this otherwise good person cannot have respectable dialog about Trump with anyone that supports anything Trump is doing. I will use this friend as an example. He was not just angry; he could not even express himself without a high level of contention. His contention was not just in his tone of voice but also in accusation. His accusations were along the lines of Hitler and the Nazi following (I have studied Joseph Goebbels and the Nazi movement). I do not think Trump fits that category. I do believe that Trump is a narcissist. With perhaps very rare exception – I think every career politician (and the vast majority of bureaucrats) are narcissists just to be able to survive the current climate of our government. Back to the FBI agents involved in the January 6 incident at our capital. It is my understanding that they were working undercover. They were not wearing garb with FBI written on them. I do not think the FBI followed protocol concerning the pipe bomb. I also do not believe they were following protocols to encourage taking down barriers and entering our congressional building. I also do not believe that anything Trump said was even as near as bad as what several of our elected officials are saying on intercom speakers at rallies (in DC) in opposition to DOGE. I do not understand the logic of such seemingly double standard. I will admit that I do not know sufficient information to be sure of anything beyond my own suspicion – that I do not trust enough to accuse anyone of criminal behavior – let alone what I understand of the Anti-Christ. What concerns me is that though I would love to sit down and have a completely open discussion with the likes of someone like @JohnsonJones – I am not sure it is possible to discuss details and question logic without generating contention with someone that I do not wish at all to offend. I would only like to discover what I seem to have missed. I am not interested in name calling or labels. I do not believe talking about Trump as a convicted felon is any more sufficient than accusing Jesus because he also was a convicted felon. I am interested not so much in any opinion as I am in the why of specific opinions – and if such why’s are distributed amicably without bias. Why do I currently support Trump? Because of DOGE. I believe (and with what I consider good logic and reason) that 90% of our federal social programs are wasted on corruption and inefficiency. In all my life I have not encountered any other politician willing to take on the corruption (both political and personal pushback) and waist in our government. I question why our elected officials (especially federal) seem to leave office with vast amounts of wealth beyond their pay grade. With the exception of Trump that has lost wealth. Not that I believe in Trump more than those called on our Church – just that I believe wealth and especially the desire to keep wealth is so often an indication of corruption. Many of our founding fathers accumulated a lot of wealth that was lost in their pursuits of freedom and liberties. The Traveler

Welcome aboard! As you likely know, glossolalia was practiced in the early LDS Church (the first known instance involved Brigham Young, and those with him were skeptical about it until Joseph Smith himself expressed approval). It occurred intermittently through the late territorial period, with Eliza Snow being a noted practitioner. JS taught that a true manifestation of the gift would always be accompanied by another person present being given the gift of interpretation. I think that as the world has tilted more towards rationalism, and in conjunction with D&C 50 (and the circumstances that underlay that revelation), European and American Saints have gotten more suspicious of those sorts of “charismatic” spiritual gifts—both because we are culturally groomed to find them unseemly, and because they are so easily counterfeited by the adversary. (And even if you think you’re experiencing the gift, it takes a lot to put yourself publicly “out there” and have faith that someone else will get the interpretation and that you won’t end up looking like a complete kook). We expect not to receive these sorts of manifestations—and so, we don’t.

As to the article itself, I think the author gives Collins too much credit. Dislike of him is not based on (or mainly based on) his social cluelessness nor his blind optimism, but on his stringent insistence on categorizing people according to the most superficial, simplistic, vain categories possible. He is not happy because he's stupid; rather, he seems incapable of being truly happy or even contented, because he utterly lacks the awareness of self and of others that would allow him to order the world in any kind of coherence. He is thus the perfect underling for Lady Catherine, a slightly smarter but even more corrupt version of Collins himself. As far as the author's ideas of being content with one's place and situation, I think she's onto something. Long ago, as a child, I learned of the Buddhist idea of ridding oneself of desire in order to avoid the unhappiness of unmet desires. I dismissed it in my childhood as grossly cynical (though I would not have used that word; I probably didn't know that word), but the older I get, the more wisdom I see in getting rid of stupid, vain desires for exactly this reason—and the more I see that such stupid, vain desires constitute most of the desires we use to guide our life course. So in that, I agree with her. Despite his own lack of perception and good sense, Collins seemed to have ended up pretty well situated, all things considered.

The ridiculous story about the "red horse," and "the black horse," and "the white horse," and a lot of trash that has been circulated about and printed and sent around as a great revelation given by the Prophet Joseph Smith, is a matter that was gotten up, I understand, some ten years after the death of the Prophet Joseph Smith, by two of our brethren who put together some broken sentences from the Prophet that they may have-heard him utter from time to time, and formulated this so called revelation out of it, and it was never spoken by the prophet in the manner in which they have put it forth. It is simply false: that is all there is to it. (Joseph F. Smith, Conference Report, October 1918, p.58.)

It was a unanimous decision as it was (as far as finding for the Church). Three different opinions were all vehemently against the plaintiff. 6 judges said: 4 judges said: The final judge If all 11 judges bashed the plaintiff with a variety of legal reasons, it is pretty obvious that this was a non-starter.

Stript, wounded, beaten nigh to death, I found him by the highway side. I roused his pulse, brought back his breath, Revived his spirit, and supplied Wine, oil, refreshment—he was healed. I had myself a wound concealed, But from that hour forgot the smart, And peace bound up my broken heart.

Reasonable proposal. I only found out five minutes ago that the children's song book and hymn boom are being combined into 1 book when this new hymn book is eventually released. On an optimistic note, if all I have to get ruffled about in life is a song, I must have really brilliant life.

Sounds like a nice, simplistic children's song, good for primary. But not sacrament meetingesque for my tastes. Maybe it would engage children more in sacrament meeting, which I am all for if that is the intent.

The Children's Songbook has a song about popcorn popping on an apricot tree. At the end of my post are the lyrics (which I'll note here are copyright IRI - that is, the Church owns the song). There is absolutely nothing in this song that is remotely1 related to Christ, the gospel, the Church, religion, etc. And yet, there it is (and many others like it in said songbook - aptly named, since it's clearly not a hymnbook). Now, I'll note here that the new book is called Hymns—For Home and Church. Here's a quote from the intro: Now, English being what it is, I'm not sure whether they're really saying that [each and every song is appropriate for all three uses] (I disagree, but I'm nobody) or whether they're saying that [there are some songs available for each of the three uses] (I agree). It sounds more like the first, but I can't be certain. Regardless, there's folks who choose which of numerous hymns to sing and I'll bet there are many that any given ward has never sung in its entire history. With luck, those folks who do the selecting allow themselves to be guided by the Spirit in their selections for sacrament meetings. Regardless, I think one should take these things into account when pondering the new songs. Perhaps wait to get upset until you actually see the hymn number up on the [whatever that thing on the wall is called where they put the hymn numbers]. (After a search, it's called a "hymn board".) Popcorn is not popping on your apricot tree, but your (grand)children will likely love the idea, so let them sing this: 1Unless you wish to point out Christ is the creator and without Him there would be neither popcorn nor apricot trees, nor anything else in this song, nevermind the person who wrote it or organization that owns it.... But I think you know what I meant. For the record, I'd be perfectly happy if they'd stopped at #1001 "Come, Thou Fount of Every Blessing", but whatever. (I am slightly upset that they appear to have started their hymns with #1001 rather than #1000 - I mean, that's just backwards. All lists should start with item 0, not item 1. (I get that the first three characters are just to distinguish the new hymns from the old, so I'm ignoring those and focusing on the relevant digit.) Still, it's not too late to redeem themselves and give us hymn #1000 - though it is too late to do the right thing and put "Come, Thou Fount of Every Blessing" in it's appropriate first (aka zeroth) position.)

I've posted an announcement underneath the rules banner. Please take note. This will affect most of those who have accounts. We're not sure yet when this will take place but we wanted to give people plenty of notice.

He says as he despises all those who like Trump.

Third Dan in TKD here. Some boxing experience too. All amateur and I’m nothing to write home about in either sport. As a general rule, the more experience you have on the mats/in the ring, the less you go around looking for reasons to fight outside of the ring. Again it’s all a generality, but 90% of men grossly overestimate their ability in hand to hand combat. I’ve heard the “I just go red and black out bro!” saying so many times that it’s no longer funny. Just tiresome.

Here are the temple recommend questions: Can you point out which question you might find problematic, and explain why? The questions dealing with laws are the law of chastity, and laws of the gospel. From what I've heard from our church leaders for quite some time now, worthiness doesn't mean perfection. It doesn't mean we've necessarily got our lives together. It seems they are happier with us in the temple than out of it. Even if some things in our lives aren't totally aligned with the current culture or legal landscape in which we happen to live. Especially if some things in our lives are out of whack.

IIRC, Joseph F Smith was church historian for a while in the late 19th century; and there were several docs that he felt people just weren’t ready to hear (and of course, being Joseph’s nephew, he had a personal interest in not wanting negative matter about his uncle being published). For example, I think it was him who managed to obtain William McClellin’s journals and he locked them away so deeply that the church (and everyone else) forgot it had them . . . leading Mark Hoffman to claim he had the journals, and the Church (via proxy) to express interest in obtaining them. When the (real) journals were finally found and released, there was nothing really earthshaking; just run-of-the-mill disaffected Mormon stuff. I suspect most of the really saucy stuff from Clayton’s journal is already “out there”; and If the Church has been deliberately suppressing them in the name of protecting anyone’s image over the past 20-30 years, I would guess it has more to do with protecting Emma’s rather than Joseph’s—from what I gather, Clayton sometimes doesn’t paint her in a good light; and there are factions in the Church right now that can’t abide anything negative being said about Emma. My *guess* is that at this point the Church is ok releasing them eventually if/when it can be done in a format that will properly contextualize them. Heck, they may even be working on it now.

Applause is a reaction to a performance. Worship services, including musical numbers, should not be a performance—that is, should not be for the purpose of demonstrating skill and garnering recognition. Worship services are about worshipping God, period. Applause would, in almost all cases, be out of place and inappropriate in a worship service. That other denominations applaud their performers during what they consider worship services is of no moment. We know better, or at least we should know better.

Someone somewhere referenced the video I'll put below. It talks about the Book of Abraham and temple ordinances (specifically in ancient Egypt). How long must we wait for people to "catch up" with the gospel before we can learn like this in Sunday School? I don't necessarily mean the historic, Egyptian temple rites, but finding the temple rites in scripture! Our manuals are all watered down to the weakest of the saints - the ones who show up at Church and do little more as far as I can tell. Every time someone points me to something like this, I lament that it wasn't being taught in Church 10 years earlier... Thankfully, I've been coming across more and more things like this online - faithful things, not whacked out extreme stretches to force some pet idea into the gospel. It's very frustrating to me. You fortunate people can watch them with spouse and old-enough children and have discussions with them. Klaw and Smoke just look at me and have nothing helpful to add... This is why I wish Church were still 3 hours - or better, 4! (Not that it would matter - see my first lament.) Be grateful for your blessings. Also, watch this video:

—As much as it pains me to say it: Ukraine seems unlikely to retain its lost territories—period. —“Peace in our time” accompanied a virtually bloodless German occupation; it left Germany unsated but—more forebodingly—unharmed and ready to fight again. This time around the Russkies have already lost 150-200K troops and scads of equipment; their economy is in the crapper; and their illusions of invulnerability are largely shattered. The Daily Mail claims Russia is gearing up for all out war in Europe by 2030; but I frankly don’t believe they have the resources or the will to do it (not right now, at least). —Long-term, Russia still covets *all* of Ukraine. Ukraine should reject any peace that prevents it from preparing for the next invasion in 2040 or 2070 or whenever it happens. —Frankly, much of the NATO membership has become the sort of authoritarian collectivists (UK, France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands) that NATO was formed to safeguard against. The US should probably withdraw, or at least retrench, from its NATO commitments; and clear the way for a new European alliance as a check against Russian expansionism. I have no problem with a peace that commits to Ukraine staying out of NATO so long as Ukraine has the leeway to join whatever local alliance takes its place. —Ukraine should be given nukes (or be allowed a period in which to develop their own nuclear program). We un-nuked them in the 1990s in exchange for territorial guarantees that we then abandoned. It seems unlikely that anything else will contain the Russians long-term; and restoring that post-cold-war status quo is the least we can do.

Well, that seems like a difficult predicament. I hope the Lord can help you through that. I've heard some people have had that happen. But of all the people who have personally shared theirs with me (either generally or completely) none of them have had any gift of the Spirit mentioned in their patriarchal blessing. So, I wouldn't feel so bad about that. It has been my experience that the gifts of the Spirit come from the Gift of the Holy Ghost. That is to say, when we "receive the Holy Ghost" we generally receive at least one gift of the Spirit to some degree or other. Perhaps this blessing had nothing to do with your mission. It was a promise of a gift yet to be developed. And as you do, you'll find a purpose for using it that may be later in life. Yes, that's a pretty tough one. It is often difficult for a neurotypical mind to comprehend the differences between our own thought vs the impressions of the Holy Ghost. It would undoubtedly be more difficult for a schizophrenic. I can tell you that being able to "hear" the Spirit comes in stages. As you learn to hear the Spirit on very simple things, first, then you can eventually get more important and more nuanced things later. It is like developing a palet for fine foods. If all you've had is cheap bread, you may not know the difference in flavor of various breads. But with enough experience, one can recognize the difference between 50 cent store brand vs those fresh french bread loaves that they bring out to the checkout lines. It takes a lot of experience with many loaves and paying careful attention with each exposure. Slowly, you explore and experience, keep analyzing and comparing. Experiment. Pray and learn. It usually starts with the feeling of "I wonder if..." As you pursue and experiment, you'll know through experience which of those "I wonders" are from the Lord or not. As you learn and grow, your confidence in being able to discern will be greater. While you have the added difficulty of schizophrenia, you'll need to be even more cautious. For others, they only need to discern between their own thoughts vs the Spirit. But you have a third possibility - your schizophrenia. So, that added handicap is what requires the additional caution and experience. I can give you this advice: If you're hearing a "voice" early on, that is probably not correct. It is a rare individual that can hear the Spirit as a "voice" in early levels of familiarity with the phenomenon. That usually comes later. I say "usually" because I've known someone who heard the Spirit voice as a recent convert. I won't go into details, but I was witness to his ability to perceive things and hear verbal guidance from the Spirit. For me, I've rarely heard a voice. And the few times I did hear an actual voice was when the stakes were very high. I was much older and had prayed for many years to develop this gift. And it has never been "on demand" for me. It was when the Lord saw fit to grant me this boon because it was really necessary. Another factor is this: If you're getting a "voice" without the assurance of understanding and peace, that is probably your schizophrenia speaking. The voice tends to come only in a very dire need or for something very important. Garry, I'm going to make a guess based on what you've said in this final line. You seem pretty down on yourself. I'd encourage you to spend more time praying, pondering, and studying the scriptures for more talents and abilities that you have. Spend some time searching the internet for hobbies, talents, professions that seem to "speak to you." When you see/hear some profession where you think "I could see myself doing that." That is a signal that it is something to explore. It may not be "THE" thing you'll end up in. But maybe it will. For me, I delved into many different things. And many times, I thought "that didn't work out." But it turned out that while those episodes were not my final destination, they did contribute to my life and make me a better, more confident person overall. May the Lord bless and guide you on your journey.

Found some MRE's!

The more free a society is, the more free it is to make questionable decisions.

Here's what it says in beginning of the Come Follow Me manual: "Use this resource in any way that is helpful to you." To me it is helpful to know what we are studying that week and that is pretty much it. These manuals are written to be used by anyone in the Church, whether it be a 10 year old or a 75 year old lifetime member temple sealer. I used to feel bad that I rarely cracked open the manual when I was Sunday School president. But I knew that having a good scripture study was the main goal, not reading everything in the manual. Having said that, it is good from time to time to reassess our understanding of basic doctrines and how we would respond to basic gospel questions. Small misunderstandings of the plain and simple truths grow larger as we seek deeper truths.

@Jamie123's interesting thread about Mr. Collins has led me to reflect once again on the character of Mr. Bennet. Austen's greatest genius may have been in creating and portraying highly realistic, fully fleshed-out characters, and Mr. Bennet is one of my favorite Austen characters. His flaws invite reflection. Mr. Bennet is such an enjoyable character, not because he's a cynical and sarcastic troll, but because he is a basically decent and caring individual who indulges his own worst self to so often become a cynical and sarcastic troll. Mr. Bennet (I don't believe any first name is ever given) is a highly intelligent, basically good-natured man with a sharp sense of humor and a cutting wit. His family situation is as follows: He married the beautiful but not-very-intelligent (or at least not very clever) Miss Gardiner. (The BBC/A&E miniseries names her "Fanny", but no given name is ever specified in the novel.) It is worth noting that Miss Gardiner's brother, aptly named Mr. Gardiner, is a highly intelligent man, one of those charming and impressive lawyers I was talking about. So the intelligence is in her bloodline somewhere, but apparently found little expression in her. Mr. and Mrs. Bennet were parents to five daughters. It is worthwhile understanding the basic personalities and characteristics of these five young women: The eldest, Jane, is blessed with striking beauty, a sharp mind and wit, and a very calm and pleasing demeanor. The second, Elizabeth, is similarly endowed with beauty and intelligence, though she is portrayed as perhaps not quite as beautiful as Jane—in speaking with Jane, Elizabeth humorously notes that she (Jane) is "about five times as pretty as every other woman in the room"—but perhaps even more clever. Moreover, she inherited her father's sense of humor and occasionally cutting wit. The third, Mary, is the odd duck out in that she is not as beautiful as her four sisters, and attempts to make up for her comparative plainness by nurturing her other feminine charms, such as piano playing. The fourth is named Catherine and is familiarly called Kitty, and had never really developed her own mind or wit. She's a bit of a follower, and tends to follow her younger sister Lydia's lead. The youngest, Lydia, has all the charm of her sisters and, like her sisters (except perhaps Mary) is quite pretty, but also headstrong and unconcerned about trifles such as reputation and decorum. In the book, Mr. Bennet must be at least in his mid to late forties, and is probably in his fifties. Mr. Bennet tolerates his wife, but only barely. He is not cruel or harsh, but he is not kind to her, and he does not protect her from societal evils that he thinks she has brought on herself. On the contrary, he allows himself to laugh at and mock his wife's weaknesses. This reprehensible habit does not go unnoticed by his daughters, and is one deep and important way that he fails them. Mr. Bennet authentically loves his daughters, and is especially fond of Elizabeth and Jane. This is important: Bennet likes his two oldest daughters exactly because they are intelligent and show some depth of character. He loves his other three daughters, but he "teases" them mercilessly, meaning he constantly makes fun of them and points out their stupidity for his own amusement. Mary, Bennet's middle daughter, is perhaps the most extreme victim of this neglect. She lacks much of the beauty, grace, and charm of her sisters, and thus needs her father's support and encouragement all the more. But she doesn't get it. Jane Austen herself didn't seem to like Mary very much; how sad is that? Of all the sisters, I think Mary is the unhappiest and most to be pitied. Yes, she exposed herself to ridicule and contempt several times. But how much less likely would that have been if Mary had been directed, corrected, and encouraged by a loving father instead of simply laughed at? The same is true with Kitty, but with different results. Kitty seems to be the younger daughter potentially most sharing in the gifts of her two oldest sisters, but with little parental direction, she takes her cues from her strong-willed younger sister, Lydia. Austen does allow that Kitty would go on to improve dramatically once she left her parent's home and lived in the households of her older sisters. But again, how much better and happier would she have been with an attentive and affectionate father? And Lydia...ah, Lydia. Everyone's favorite bad girl. Lydia is done in by her own temperament. She is not a horrible, vindictive person or calculating shrew. But she applies her intelligence to vapid pursuits and vanity, living the life of a wild child. Where is her father to offer some discipline? Why did Mr. Bennet not take it upon himself to curb her foolishness and demand better of her? Because he was too busy laughing at her and enjoying the spectacle of her buffoonish behavior. Bennet even admits that he failed in his duty to provide for his daughters. He assumed he would father a son to inherit his entailment, which instead passed to a distant cousin (the very Mr. Collins of the original thread I'm referencing). Bennet rues his lack of foresight and discipline in not making or saving any fortune for his daughters. Bennet is reduced to seeing his youngest daughter in a desperate scandal, watching as his brother-in-law (as he supposes) pays off a cad named Wickham to marry her after despoiling her. In his typical sarcastic manner, he berates his own financial laziness when he complains to Elizabeth that "I cannot help regretting that I did not [...] enable you to lay by an annual sum out of your income, to bribe worthless young men to marry your sisters." Mr. Bennet fully recognizes his own foolishness and failure of duty toward his daughters, though that realization apparently does not come until after all the destruction and humlilation has been set into motion. At some level, I have to imagine that he recognizes his failure to be a proper husband to his wife, though Austen doesn't seem to say much on that account. I love Mr. Bennet's character because I think it's true-to-life. Austen restricted her "omnipotent author" mode to her female characters, once remarking that she wasn't a man and couldn't speak for men (or something to that effect). But I see her keen insight into human behavior and motives in her male characters as well, none moreso that Mr. Bennet. He was a deeply flawed but also deeply likeable character. I feel like if I had actually known a real Mr. Bennet, I would have liked him and probaby considered him a friend. But I would not have modeled myself on him. Too much laughing at other people's stupidity and too little self-reflection to recognize his own.

In real news, here are the President's tax priorities he just laid out to the Rep legislators: 1- no tax on tips 2- no tax on SocSec 3- no tax on overtime pay 4- renewing the tax cuts 5- adjusting the SALT cap 6- eliminate all tax breaks for billionaire sports team owners 7- close the carried tax deduction loophole 8- tax cuts for made in America products

There’s a lot there thought-provoking and attractive in the article, but let me play devil’s advocate for a minute. I confess I don’t know much about what Anglican clerics of Collins’s station actually did (then or now). It would be interesting to know what Austen thought of clerics generally (wasn’t her father one? And wasn’t there a sort of view through the period that the clergy was more or less a dumping ground for the mediocre younger sons of the gentry/ nobility?) You get the impression that at least some measure of self-discipline and sexual restraint was expected (cf Darcy’s observation that Wickham “must not” (IIRC) join the clergy). And you get the feeling that whatever was expected of clergymen, Sense and Sensibility’s Edward Farrars would probably do it in good faith and with good intentions, if nothing else. But it’s hard to imagine any of those characters (at least, as I recall them) crafting really effective sermons, or providing particularly solid life-advice to congregants seeking counseling, or offering material charity to the poor in a way that wasn’t at least a little bit cringeworthy. And - again, I don’t know what contemporary Anglican discourse really looked or sounded like; but it seems telling to me that (again, so far as I can remember) none of these priestly candidates ever says anything about Jesus Himself. The entire Church, for Austen, seems more an enforcer of convention than a repository of spiritual vivification; and we know from Collins’s final letter to Mr. Bennet that he himself is capable of (and advocates for) great cruelty which even Bennet (not a particularly kind man himself) recognizes. One could potentially respond to the author of the article of the OP that Collins is at heart a secular humanist in a collar—the sort of amiable bumbler intent primarily on cashing out his own legacy of life-happiness while giving perfunctory service to forms created by predecessors better than himself whose purpose he is incapable of comprehending; and the type of person who through ignorance and apathy permitted and enabled the spiritual (and then temporal) rot of the British Empire.

Elder Holland gave a talk at BYU 20-odd years ago (later printed in the Ensign in condensed form) that deals specifically with the interplay between this verse, revelation generally, and the experience(s) of Moses. I believe it was entitled “Cast not away your confidence”, or something similar.

Conversely, if people are unable to keep the commandment to love all and forgive all, they don't have to worry about whether their abuser is in the celestial kingdom or not, because they won't be there themselves. It's an incredibly sobering thought, especially for folks who have tasted some of the worst things humans have to offer one another.

I almost got taken in by a scammer using my American Express. Got a call. Caller ID said Amex. Said my card had been compromised and they had tried using it for $700 in Florida at a Target but was flagged because of where it was and the amount. So they tried to get me to do different things. Now the caller ID had the actual number on the back of my card so I thought legit. But during that call, I kept getting another caller trying to call that also said Amex. So I hung up and called the number on my card. Sure enough, the first caller was the scammer and was trying to get all of the information regarding my card. He had even gotten into my account online. So we had to cancel the card, and I had to change all of the stuff on my online account. Now I don't trust anyone. And I'm usually pretty smart regarding these things.

Thanks to social media, I know a number of people who live in Canada. Several of them have told me that they're not keen on Trudeau, and feel that his tenure has brought failure and shame on the country. They actually see this tariff fight as potentially being a good thing in the long run if it does in fact force Trudeau to resign.

Glad to see this particular evil seeing some daylight. Because that's how you stop this particular evil - by dragging it into the daylight. Shame on the ACLU.

In the tradition of Onward Christian Soldiers, and We Are All Enlisted, I’m looking forward to the addition of the USMC Hymn.

As I've been having to explain to people - I spent the better part of two years as a branch finance clerk. I got audited every six months, and those audits were quite intense. The more I hear about what's going on in Washington, the more it becomes clear that there are entire agencies that couldn't pass the kind of muster I had to go through.

I saw a clip on Fox news that is a preview of a Trump and Musk interview. Musk is talking about a good friend (but no longer a friend) of his that started to talk about Trump, and it was like he was shot with a dart of methine laced with rabies. Musk said that his friend suddenly turned. Musk then holds his hands up like claws. This was quite a surprise to me and at the same time I realized that I have observed this same behavior myself – both with family members and friends. Some are not democrats but republican supporters of Romney. In all cases the conversations were not expressly about Trump. For example, about a year ago I asked a family member if they had determined who they were going to vote for. They never answered the question but instead when into a very angry rant about Trump and why Trump could not ever be president again. In a more recent case, someone mentioned how they could not believe all the corruption and graft was being discovered by DOGE. And then a friend suddenly went into a most angry tangent rant about Trump targeting FBI agents to lose their jobs that opposed him on Jan 6th. Musk said that it is impossible to have any reasonable discussion with such angry individuals. I do not know if anyone has noticed this Trump derangement syndrome. I am of the belief that contention is of the devel. I have no desire what-so-ever to have any kind of a discussion with someone that is hot angry – even if I agree with what they are saying. In fact, if someone is angry in discussing a subject, I am of the notion that I need to rethink my stand if I agree with them. There are several conservative commentators that I just do not listen to because their composure is somewhat over the top with anger. One last side note. A long time ago in a galaxy far far away I competed in debate in high school. I learned that if I could make my opponent angry I would always win the debate – a tactic my debate partner was expert at and won us a state championship. This is also a lesion I have determined is necessary for communicating on the internet. If something makes me angry, it is only because Satan has found a way into my heart. The Traveler

I have thought to engage you post and certain thoughts. My intention is to be careful because there are some things that may appear that I disagree, but I am not sure that is the case. Hopefully, it is mostly a misunderstanding. My understanding of righteousness is someone that makes and keeps covenants with G-d. The opposite of righteousness is wickedness and thus is someone that either refuses to covenant with G-d or deliberately breaks their covenant with G-d. I believe that there is a third option – someone that does not know or understand G-d and his covenants. I am of the mind that the vast majority of us humans fall into this third option of someone, that to some degree or another, just does not understand that much about G-d or his covenants as we should. We tend to think only someone that is anti-Christ would crucify Him – and yet the last words of Christ during his mortal experience were, “Father forgive them for they know no what they do.” At another time and place Jesus forbid his disciples from judging others. Some scholars have interpreted that what Jesus said would be better translated as Jesus forbidding his disciples from condemning others. This introduces a bit of a conundrum. Would condemning someone as being anti-Christ be an actual act of an anti-Christ? Jesus said that to look upon another and lust after them, means that we have already committed adultery in our heart. If we are to only have those void of adultery to be our leaders – who has never committed adultery in their heart? And who is worthy to determine who has or has not repented? Be it 7 or 70 times 7 acts of repentance? I would personally be elated if an Apostle of Christ could be elected. Unfortunately, in our society to even write in an Apostle of Christ would be a wasted ballot. I would make one point for your consideration. In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints donated funds are considered sacred. The abuse and misuse of donated funds to the Church are considered sufficient for excommunication from the Church. It is an act that requires the First Presidency review for repentance and restoration of covenant blessings. During my entire lifetime (which is approaching 8 decades) there has never been a president of the United States of America that believes donated (taxed) funds are sacred and should not be wasted or abused than what appears to me to be the actions of President Trump. I do not personally know Trump. I have not liked him much as a person because I am not a fan of corporate billionaires. I am even less a fan of professional politicians. It has been more than 50 years that I have felt that I could campaign for anyone running for political office because of my personal prejudice of those willing to run for a national political office. Because of my personal covenants with G-d and especially the 12th Article of Faith I have personally bit my tongue about kings, presidents, rulers and magistrates. I hope for a time when Christ will reign. But until such a time, I will abide by the laws that are established – even while I visit such places as Russia or China or wherever. And yet for all my disappointments in political leaders I dare not judge or condemn any so as to present my witness that any are without any doubt in my mind to be anti-Christ. Though I believe many things of the world to be anti-Christ and should be called out and witnessed to be anti-Christ – I do not know enough about any individual to so label them. The Traveler

Anyone who's already logged in can just go to Account Settings to see their email address.

No. I've neve suplexed anyone. I have assisted people to the ground.

https://abcnews.link/BdhL3vw?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR2pFbeQB0nOmgVMpFB2p-Hf4lNoJ-Msm2VPWx2pcFLN18BDuMhf3vivZfs_aem_rBlkVRNiTHdt12eTBldwKA The left claims to be anti war. They aren’t of course. I have no confidence that they’ll give Trump credit for ending this, if he does.

Me being me, I would have a printed out copy of the handbook of instructions showing why the added measures are not necessary and I would not being doing any of them until they were in the handbook.

I've often found myself being the "translator" between my FIL and the rest of the family. He has a vocabulary that is difficult to match. And he frequently insists on using archaic definitions of words. Because of this, miscommunications spark arguments. I then step in to translate. The argument usually dies pretty quickly.

In my opinion, this should be the general rule with adult children -- the exception being if they are mooching off you somehow (still living at home, etc.), but even then...it's a judgement call. But otherwise....butt out unless asked.

We are also upsetting some of our closest allies, which is never a smart idea. Russia loves it, China loves that we are doing this, so does North Korea. Tariffs can be useful, but we shouldn't be upsetting our allies while doing it (along with other threats, like telling Denmark that they should give us Greenland). Also, anyone who thinks other countries will pay the Tariff are kidding themselves. Tariffs are paid on items coming into the country, and thus are paid for by those who buy those items in that country.

Democrats Panic After Their Horrifying Money Laundering Scheme Was Revealed Summary: USAID has been exposed as a slush fund for international manipulation. It was never for the purpose of "helping the impoverished people" of foreign nations that may or may not be allies. What's worse is that the funds weren't going where Congress approved it to go. It didn't even go where USAID said it was going. It was just an endless piggy bank for the people in USAID to spend on whatever they wanted, with impunity. A program of the government that most people didn't even know existed until Musk said it was just a ball of worms is now being heavily defended by Democrats all over. Shutting it down will be a $40B savings per year. One down, 99 to go.

What a great article! And it has a moral, too! A very good moral, if you happen to be an oyster.

Please tell her thank you from all the humans who use the app.

Interesting quote from the Tribulation Basically, He read the statement ahead of time. He was a successful enough businessman that he should have known what it meant. And the Church abided by that statement. But he still chose to cry foul knowing full well that the Church did exactly as promised. If the Church were vindictive, they'd be well within their rights to cry out "malicious prosecution."