Leaderboard

I met the church in 1975 in the same year as the country opened to the preaching of the gospel after the 1974 revolution. In the summer of 1976 I was baptized at the age of 20 and was one of the first converts in Portugal, the following year I left for the Spain-Barcelona mission. At the end of my mission I moved to Italy where I got married and started a family. I have four children and five grandchildren. I have served in various positions in the church in both Portugal and Italy. I am currently retired and now live between Portugal and Italy.

Hi and welcome Ruben. FYI to all, our church website grows beefier every year with increasing resources on sensitive topics like this one. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/content/perspectives-on-church-history/revelations-in-the-summer-of-1978?lang=eng https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/video/2021-01-0080-struggling-with-the-history-of-race-and-the-priesthood-his-grace?lang=eng

We don’t know that. Many assume that, because they just can’t fathom the idea of God acting in a way that they’ve been culturally groomed to believe is universally unjustifiable. David O. McKay was ready, willing, and able to remove the ban in the 1950s. He prayed about it requesting permission multiple times, and was repeatedly told “no”; there are multiple accounts of people who heard him tell about this. Once we admit that the continuation of the ban past 1951 was at God’s instruction, it becomes awfully difficult to argue that the implementation of the ban could not have been at His instruction. Especially when there is both past and modern precedent for lineage/ethnic/“race”-based bans on priesthood ordination and/or temple blessings. (Even today, the Church won’t do proxy temple work for Jews in the spirit world except under very rare circumstances. Is that an error, or a temporary concession that God allowed His servants to make so that other facets of His work could go forward? We don’t like to think about the work of salvation or the Church’s mission including any kind of cold calculus that advances the work of salvation in one field at the expense of delaying the salvation of other individuals—especially when those individuals are statistical minorities or perceived “outsiders” or victims oof historical oppression—but it absolutely does.) When modern Church leadership says “we don’t know the ‘why’, and it’s best not to speculate”, they don’t mean “LDS progressives get to make all kinds of inferences and accusations and extrapolate links to modern-day issues, and LDS conservatives are bound not to offer any pushback”. They mean “we don’t know the ‘why’, and it’s best not to speculate”.

In autumn 1975 I experienced a mystical crisis and started looking for God. Until then I considered myself an atheist, although I was taught the Catholic faith. A friend of mine lent me a book of Mormon that he had received from the missionaries who had visited his home. Reading the book of Mormon was the key to my conversion. I couldn't resist its spiritual power. Finally my friend and I accepted the invitation to join the church through baptism.

Come to Utah. Our climate is more than diverse enough. One day it's summer, the next it's winter, the next it's fall, then we're back to winter. It's absurd. Way, way too diverse. What we need is a Director of Climate Consistency!

I know this is a sensitive topic and I don't want to be rude or offensive to anyone, my question is simple to understand. Since the time of Brigham Young, several theories have emerged to exclude blacks from exercising the priesthood, with the explanation that they were not very courageous in their pre-existence or were descendants of Cain or even descendants of Canan, son of Noah. Since none of these theories or explanations are today accepted as official Church doctrine, but merely human theories, why was it necessary for divine revelation to put an end to this practice?

Blaming Brigham Young for the priesthood ban is easy, simplistic, and completely misses the point. The scriptures and historical record are full of prophets and apostles making mistakes, getting things wrong, and generally screwing things up. They also show God correcting his prophets, and apostles. Rebuking, calling to repentance, and otherwise correcting course. If you want to believe that Brigham Young made up the priesthood ban for whatever reason... More power to you. But that just punts the question down the road to being... Why did the Lord wait so long to correct it? If it was indeed an error of Brigham Young... God owns that gap. If it was not an error of Brigham then the question becomes what purpose was the Lord accomplishing if it was not? Those are the hard questions that we do not have clear answers to.

Saying something is not official church doctrine is not the same thing as saying it is not true. Many people receive personal revelation about truths that have been established as official church doctrine. Now that doesn't mean those particular theories are true. It just means that there has been no official explanation. We know that Jesus put restrictions on to whom the gospel should be preached to during His mortal ministry. To me this is an even bigger restriction than withholding the priesthood. The Jews mistakenly believed it was because Christ had only come to save those of Israel. They were wrong of course and through revelation that restriction was eventually rescinded. But I don't think we ever really got a good explanation for it in the first place. In time all will be revealed.

We don't know the process by which a self-existing intelligence becomes a son or daughter of God. Clearly, though, there is enough involvement in our Heavenly Parent's parts to form that familial relationship. But the immortal state of Adam and Eve is not equal to the resurrected and glorified state of those who receive exaltation. It might be a closer comparison to those in the Telestial Kingdom. Still not the same but closer.

Carborendum asks: What on earth are you using for an interface? I've never seen a post go over the side like this. I wrote the text in my editor and then copied and pasted it. Thats all Sorry

The English word "meridian" is borrowed direcly from the old French meridien "midday", which comes from the Latin word meridianum "noon". By definition (original definition, not 21st-century American "daylight saving time" definition), noon is when the sun is at its zenith. In other words, noon is the "high point" of the day. Similarly, "the meridian of time" would be the "high point" of the mortal probation, which naturally would be when the Son arose and brought Light to the world. Noon takes place at around the middle of the day, as the mortal probation of the Son of God took place around the middle of the time of mortal probation. But any idea that we can somehow mathematically derive the coming of the Son of Man from the idea is useless. That is not how God works.

Nor the US - and Trump (for all his faults) is unlikely to let things slide in that department. As for Starmer though.... *shudder*

Hearing our German exchange student talk about what is and isn’t allowed there is chilling,

Personality and revenge issues aside, I'm often appalled at European reactions to free speech. (Note: Free speech does not include libelous statements or intentionally rousing a mob riot.) I have heard many Europeans, Brits and Germans in particular, insist that they have free speech, and then immediately start explaining why this or that (e.g. Holocaust denial) isn't really a matter of free speech. I heard a couple of Brits on a YT channel talking about anti-homosexuality ("homophobic" was their word) activists in the US being forcibly silenced. Their response was, "Well, good. That sort of speech is offensive, and no one should be allowed to say it." That was the same time period that I heard an online German apologist say, literally, "We have free speech in Germany. Of course we do. You just can't talk about Hitler or say the Holocaust wasn't real." SMH. The frightening part for us Americans is that there is a sizeable contingent (still a minority, at least for now) that agrees with these ideas about so-called "free" speech.

This is false. If you insist it's true, please provide evidence that the Priesthood ban did not originate from God, as the Church clearly taught for over a century. The fact that a revelation was required to change the practice is strong evidence that the practice was indeed divinely inspired. They did not. They believed a revelation from God was necessary to abolish a Church practice.

You might want to read chapter 6 of Jesus the Christ by Talmage. It's called Meridian of Time and gives his views on the matter.

I would take exception to the lack of physical attraction, as they were man and wife. Why would they not engage in sexual relations, even if they failed to reproduce more immortal offspring like themselves? I think they did not fail to fulfil the command to replenish the earth due to lack of sexual feelings (even children have these) or a willingness to engage in sexual intercourse as a result, but as a matter of paradisaical regulation (regulation in all respects) and a lack of understanding that a knowledge of good and evil was prerequisite for bringing forth beings that could bring forth, eventually in time, the Christ through a mortal mother. Eve eventually made this connection, then Adam followed suit. Their transgression pushed them out of (or from) paradisaical regulation into mortal regulation, the only path to obtaining celestial regulation through Christ. What we do know is that things changed according to God's wisdom and plan!

Then there's that English thing...

He believed it was the current "fence" that was in place. And he didn't know why it was put in place. No one did. We still don't know the original purpose/reasoning. And, no, we don't know if it was just an "error" or if it really was commanded. We don't know. We have no original documents that state how or why. Only a lot of theories and a bunch of records that may or may not have been official. We don't know. And when we don't know, a Prophet goes to the Lord for guidance. And the guidance finally given in 1978.

Your explanation actually makes sense however this situation is a little different than the situation you describe. In our case the initiative did not come from the Lord but from the leaders of the Church. President Spencer W. Kimball found it necessary to ask the Lord to eliminate the practice. If it was a human error and not a divine one that had continued for 126 years, it would not have been sufficient to admit the human error, apologize and abandon the practice without inconveniencing the Lord. Why did leaders believe a revelation from God was necessary to abolish a wrong practice? Here is an excerpt from the official statement 2: "... Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to change this practice and sought guidance in prayer. The revelation came to Church President Spencer W. Kimball and was disseminated to other leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978. This revelation removed any racial restrictions that once applied to the priesthood. "

We're so glad you did and that you joined us on the forums. We look forward to hearing your wisdom on various topics.

This is just largely speculation on my part, but it makes the most sense to me. The priesthood ban went from 1852-1978. Most Church leaders during this time will have been born after the ban was implemented. The longer the practice goes on, the deeper entrenched it would have become and so I'm willing to bet almost all Church members had no experience of it being any other way, not to mention apartheid in America existed for most this time period as well, so there was probably a large cultural influence. If you look at the Book of Mormon the Lamanites departed from the truth not long after arriving on the American continent, but the majority of the Lamanites only really converted to Christ after the savior himself visited the American continent. The same question you put forward can be asked, why was it necessary for Christ to visit in the flesh before the people began to accept him? The clues were always there as to what the truth was, but only after a divine visitation did they grasp it.

Excerpt from Jeffrey R. Holland, “Rending the Veil of Unbelief,” in The Voice of My Servants: Apostolic Messages on Teaching, Learning, and Scripture, ed. Scott C. Esplin and Richard Neitzel Holzapfel (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2010), 143–64. https://rsc.byu.edu/voice-my-servants/rending-veil-unbelief Yet another interpretation of this passage is that the faith of the brother of Jared was so great he saw not only the spirit finger and body of the premortal Jesus (which presumably many other prophets had also seen) but also had some distinctly more revealing aspect of Christ’s body of flesh, blood, and bone. Exactly what insight into the flesh-and-blood nature of Christ’s future body the brother of Jared might have had is not clear, but Jehovah does say to him, “Because of thy faith thou hast seen that I shall take upon me flesh and blood” (Ether 3:9), and Moroni does say that Christ revealed Himself in this instance “in the likeness of the same body even as he showed himself unto the Nephites” (Ether 3:17). Some have taken that to mean literally “the same body” the Nephites would see—a body of flesh and blood. A safer position would be that it was at least the exact spiritual likeness of that future body. Jehovah says, “Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit . . .and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh” (Ether 3:16), and Moroni says, “Jesus showed himself unto this man in the spirit” (Ether 3:17).

Thank you all for the interesting answers. We don't know how long Adam and Eve lived in the Garden before being expelled but we know that there was no procreation and this also includes the rest of creation, otherwise there would be many immortal beings out there. I particularly liked Iaronius' answer, when he said that probably Adam and Eve still did not show physical attraction between them. In short, the most sensible answer to this question is that we don't know. Anyway, thanks.

Introducing a fourth spatial dimension would easily solve many of the mysteries about heavenly beings à la Flatland, though that belongs firmly in the camp of untestable speculation.

The story of Adam and Eve is very obvious sexual metaphor. For millennia, scholars and lay people alike have connected the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" with sex, just as the "tree of life" must be sex. Adam and Eve, naked and innocent in a beautiful garden, told not to partake but tempted of the serpent (another rather bizarre sexual metaphor) to do so. When they do, they are cast out of paradise and into a hostile world, where they start having children through sexual union. Interestingly, the woman falls first, then the man follows after her. Shades of the old Jewish legends of Lilith. Yet modern prophets have insisted quite clearly that sex was not "the forbidden fruit". So I'll accept their word. But that doesn't mean that I don't think there is obvious and intentional sexual symbolism. For example, many of our prophets have condemned, implicitly or at times explicitly, ideas of organic evolution. I have no doubt that at least some of them believed that organic evolution itself was wholly wrong and evil, a Satanic lie. I believe organic evolution to be an undeniable part of our mortal existence, yet I accept prophetic teachings, including their imprecations about evolution. I believe that society in general—that is, the natural man—uses the process of organic evolution as a sort of allegory or symbol of or excuse for misbehavior. In the 1990s, a popular misuse of science was to assign to President Clinton the role of "alpha" (as if humans are a pack of dogs) and then excuse his marital infidelity and abuse of his office as "just what alphas naturally do". This is a great example of the perversion and misuse of the idea of evolution. Of course, many who insist the loudest on the factuality of organic evolution are raging atheists, and they illogically build their aversion to theism on the foundation (as they lyingly claim) of organic evolution. To one who doesn't understand organic evolution, and frankly even to some who do, this puts evolution firmly in the camp of atheism and antiChristianity. In the same way, I think that the openly sexually metaphoric nature of the story of Adam and Eve in Eden has been perverted historically to say that women are naturally sexually licentious, or that women drag men down, or that sex is a dirty and disgusting activity that degrades its participants, or that celibacy is a higher and holier way of life than living as a sexually active spouse, or whatever other nonsense has been attached to the story. The prophets recently seem to have taken special pains to point out that the Fall of Man was a blessed event, however it was accomplished, and that we are not to vilify Eve for having partaken of the forbidden fruit. The presentation of the temple endowment itself has been altered to emphasize this. Scripturally, there can be no doubt that Adam rebuffed Satan's temptations and Eve succumbed to them, and that Adam and Eve as a result were cursed by being cast out of Eden; yet for all this, the modern prophets are unanimous in proclaiming Eve as a great woman, the physical and spiritual companion meet for her mighty prophet of a husband, one of the greatest beings ever to tread this earth. And so we are to honor and exalt our first parents, not vilify or blame them. Since those who have historically accepted the sexual nature of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil have portrayed the act as one of great evil with horrific consequences, it makes sense that modern prophets would correct this falsehood by wholly disclaiming their interpretations. If we're honest and careful about our interpretations, partaking of the forbidden fruit does not necessarily mean engaging in sexual relations. In any case, sex per se is not and never was the issue. (No pun intended.) @Ruben, Adam and Eve were called to bring forth the hosts of men after they had fallen into a mortal state. The gifts of fertility and reproduction appear not to have been granted them while they were in their paradisiacal, unfallen state. Beyond this, we know nothing of the mechanics of the Fall, so anything else we say would be mere uninformed speculation, useless at best. PS: Welcome to the board!

I was reminded today about the earthquake that hit the Salt Lake area four and a half years ago right as covid was gearing up and roughly 200 years since the first vision. The angel Moroni on the temple dropped his trumpet in the quake. There was speculation at the time that maybe there was some symbolism in the event. I'm curious now that a few years have gone by if hindsight lends credibility to potential symbolism.

In the Bible "knowing" can have a sexual connotation. Makes me wonder if the tree of knowledge played a roll in their ability to reproduce. Also, Adam is referred to as being like a child when first created. It was probably the same for Eve. Physical attraction may simply have not been present at this point.

I'm glad I didn't comment on this earlier because it's amazing how a bit of extra information can change your perspective on things. The lesson is not to jump too quickly on the bandwagon. Allison Pearson is a columnist in The Daily Telegraph - a particularly right wing newspaper in the uk. A few days ago she described how police had come to her house on the morning of Remembrance Sunday (of all days!) to tell her she was under investigation for an "offensive tweet" she had posted a year before. When she asked what the tweet was they refused to say. When she asked who had been offended by it they again refused to say. This quickly led to a media firestorm with much use of the words Kafkaesque and Orwellian and "a chilling effect on free speech". Well, we did eventually learn what it was all about. During the Israeli/Palestinian protests in London, the Met Police had refused to be photographed with pro-Israeli protesters. Allison Pearson had posted a photo of some smiling police officers standing beside some dark skinned individuals, holding up an Islamic-looking flag, with a message that Police had no problem being photographed beside a bunch of "Jew haters". It was quickly pointed out to her that (i) the officers were Manchester police, not Met police, and (ii) the dark skinned people were Pakistanis, and the flag they were holding was the flag of Pakistan. Realising her mistake she quickly deleted the tweet. Even so, I do think prosecuting her for "stirring up racial hatred" would have been an obscene overreaction. It was a stupid mistake, but not done in malice, and she did her best to correct matters. I'm glad that the police have now dropped the investigation - though whether they would have done without the public furore that has accompanied all this is another matter. But this is only half the story. Back during the Covid epidemic, a man called Dave Bradshaw - a scientist working for GSK - went on a bit of a Twitter-rant accusing Allison Pearson of organising a hate campaign against the NHS. Allison Pearson was furious and found out all about Bradshaw and said she would sue him and report him to his employers and get him sacked. Realising that he had probably gone off a bit half-cocked, Bradshaw removed the tweet and apologised to Pearson. Pearson said she didn't care one whit for his apology, and he would be hearing from her lawyers and she would be talking to his CEO. He begged her not to do this, telling her that he was his family's only breadwinner and he had a special needs child to support, and he was feeling suicidal. Did she care? Not a bit of it. Her reply was "You're finished!" I'm pleased to say that she did eventually agree to let the matter drop, but only after making poor Dave Bradshaw grovel in the dirt. Now the same thing (almost) has happened to her, are we really supposed to feel sorry for her?

I've heard that this is becoming common in the UK, to the point where more serious criminals are being let out of jail to make room for the "they said the wrong thing" "criminals". Further, I've heard that people accused of more serious crimes have to wait a long time (in some cases, over a year) to get a court date, while the "they said the wrong thing" "criminals" are getting tried super-fast, including in over-night courts. (Not being there to witness it, I don't know myself. I think it was Douglas Murray who reported some of that, but I forget anymore.) Apparently Canada is well on its way to follow suit.

Whelp, Elon retweeted someone complaining about the dumbest and fakest jobs. One of them is a "director of climate diversification" at the U.S. International Development Finance Corp. And now poor Ashley somebody (the person who holds that office) has gone viral for existing and now appears on memes. The media'll be pushing about how horrible Elon is for setting millions of his followers against random govt employees. But if it's ok with everyone, I'll be more outraged that my tax dollars fund a "director of climate diversification", and less outraged that Ashley somebody might need to delete her online social media presence. Both are issues.

Whelp, in China, a recent cultural crackdown had police arresting young folks in costume on Halloween. Getting booked and fingerprinted and scared about being put on a list of problem-people-the-government-would-be-keeping-an-eye-on. So it's nice the UK isn't that bad. I guess. (Just looking for upsides for a Friday_

I agree with you totally. In the UK we do have better free speech than Germany or Austria, but we won't have it forever if we're not vigilant against this sort of thing. I do think though that if we have free speech it should be for everyone, not just top newspaper columnists.

I think the biological/mechanical reason, like the rest of science, answers "how" questions, and the spiritual reason answers "why" questions. Scripture provides the latter.

Yes, Ruben, please tell us about yourself. It's so rare we get new folks who stick around, so I'm hoping we can get to know you and help you feel welcome! (I love forums and want more folk to join us!) I was born in the Church, grew up all over the US (my dad had a government job that moved us around). I'm currently a Relief Society teacher - teaching adult classes is my favorite calling. Do you have a favorite? I have two cats and almost have enough fountain pens. Contrary to what some might tell you, it's not possible to have "too many" fountain pens. (There are only two pens left on my wish list - one I might get for Christmas, another I will never own - it's way, way too expensive. I wouldn't complain if someone gave me a Kaweco Dia 2, but I probably won't ever buy one.) ETA: Oops, forgot the obvious: Are you still in Portugal? Tell us a little about it (I've never gotten closer to it than Barcelona.)

So, we're in the Holiday Season. I thought I'd take some time to discuss the lesser known facts that many of us know, but don't really think about all that often during these holidays. THANKSGIVING It really began when a devastating winter and epidemic killed off many of the Natives, as well as half the Plymouth Colony. Because of this time of need, no one was in no mood to fight. The Pilgrims had been fighting with the Pequot Tribe (known to be a belicose tribe of the area). *Note, sources disagree about this, as they do about what tribe it was. The Wampanoag tribe was also warring with that tribe. So, the Wampanoags sent Samoset (a Wampanoag) and Tisquantum (aka: Squanto who was the sole survivor of his own tribe) were sent to extend an olive branch to the pilgrims and set up an alliance against the Pequot. Because the Pilgrims had women and children with them, and they were building homes in unclaimed lands, the Wampanoag believed these settlers to be different than the white men who had come earlier. Squanto taught them how to hunt and plant crops in the New World. It was a different terrain, climate, soil, and wilderness full of animals they were not familiar with. Because of this education and alliance, the fall brought a bounteous harvest for all. And, yes, they celebrated it. For over 200 years various groups would celebrate a day of thanksgiving in honor of various traditions - not just the Pilgrim's first year. But it became an American custom to remember that year where one-time enemies got together to help each other survive and thrive. Finally, in 1863 President Abraham Lincoln determined that the nation was losing the trait of giving thanks to God for the blessings of America. So, he declared it a national holiday. Throughout the following years, people linked the new holiday with the story of the Pilgrims and Squanto. The date moved around a bit until it was finally set as the fourth Thursday in November. CHRISTMAS Everyone knows the storyline. But not everyone knows about the dates. As Christianity swept over all of Europe, the new converts still held some of their old traditions. One of the most sacred to many pagan religions was the observance of Solstice. It was a day to recognize the "return of the light". Days got longer from that night onward (in the Northern Hemisphere). As Jesus was known as the "Light of the World" it was easy to associate Jesus with Solstice. So, Christmas was celebrated here and there as a quasi-observance of solstice. The dates were not etched in stone since they didn't particularly keep track of dates during the winter months. Everything was closed. Christmas celebrations died down with the rise of Protestantism. Some recognized its connection with Pagan observances. Others revered it as a celebration of Christ. A bunch of bad stuff happened. Eventually, the Orthodox Churches and the Church of England wanted to promote it. Two authors (Washington Irving & Charled Dickens) liked the idea and gave full throated support of making it a day to remember giving aid to the poor, time to family, good will to all. The date of celebration was all over the board. But Orthodoxy won out as they wanted to keep it near the historically recognized time of Solstice. So, it was set to Dec 25th. From the Bible, we know that it was somewhat after the time Caesar Augustus declared "all the world should be taxed." This was always done at the beginning of the year. However, the year didn't begin in January. There was no January back then. March was the beginning of the year. The time between Solstice and March were simply "the winter." So, if the decree was sent on the Ides of March (commonly a public announcement that the government had opened) and Nazareth was around 60 to 70 miles away. It would have been somewhere around two to three weeks for the proclamation to reach Joseph and for them to respond. I know the "official position" of the Church may or may not support "April 6th" as His birthday, depending on whom you ask. But it still looks like a pretty good date. TWELFTH NIGHT Many an English student has read Twelfth Night (Or What You Will) in High School or College. But I've never heard a teacher tell, nor student question what that title has to do with the story except for me. And the teacher didn't know the answer. Well, Twelfth Night was the last of the Twelve Days of Christmas (as the song indicates). In Orthodoxy, it supposedly took 12 days for the wise men arrive to give him gifts (some may claim 2 years + 12 days). So, orthodox churches would have a 12-day long celebration that culminated on Jan 6th. In the Bard's time, that final day was filled with topsy-turvy antics and festivities that certainly were not reverent. And supposedly, this play was written to be performed for the Queen on Twelfth Night. So, he wrote a comedy that had people going back-and-forth in their emotions and plot twists that spun your head. So, Happy Holidays, Happy Thanksgiving, Merry Christmas, or what you will. And may your true love give you better gifts than last year.

Welcome to ThirdHour, @Ruben!

I personally believe that they had the ability (the biological/mechanical ability) to do so. But there was something that they were lacking that prevented them from doing so. Example: I tend to chop wood for the winter. My son was getting of age, so I took him out to show him about how to chop wood. In the process, I had to instruct him on axe safety. I walked him through step-by-step on how to do it safely. He learned. When he went to chop, I saw how difficult it was for him to combine all the rules I had told him. But because of those rules, he wasn't able to combine them all and yet have enough strength to make much of a chip in the wood at all. I took a turn to examine if I was truly using all those safety rules while being able to effectively chop that wood. I was doing so. And I was making progress chopping wood. There was something about his size and mindset on rules that prevented him from properly coordinating all the movements with his full strength. Thus, he was ineffective. Obviously, there is a lot that we don't know. So, it is undoubtedly something much more obscure. But I don't think I'm too far off as our mortal understanding can allow.

Hi, Ruben. Do you like Reuben sandwiches?

Welcome Ruben.

Maybe

I was thinking the law of tithing could be a terrestrial law. It is a lower law associated with the higher celestial law of consecration, and notice those who are tithed will not be burned at His coming. Neither will those living terrestrial law coincidentally. I think this is because they are living a terrestrial law and those living terrestrial laws will abide the day when the earth is transformed into a terrestrial state (Not kingdom). I have not read any statements on this, but this is my own understanding.

The two reasons I prefer a safety (I don't have them on all my guns...) are, 1, just worried about my own brain/habits and thoughtlessly putting my finger on the trigger when racking it or something. A safety is one more measure that makes me stop and think about the state of the gun. Just works for my brain to have that. 2, and this is just from youtube vids I've watched rather than personal whatever, but.... if someone gets your gun away from you in a fight, the fact that it has a manual safety has been statistically shown to keep them from using it on you before you can react and deal with that reality. If they only have to pull the trigger..... Of course that #2 is one of those theoretical internet type arguments that... you know... internet opinions. But the #1 is the real reason. I'm a smart guy. But I'm also a dumb guy. So.... anything to accentuate the smart and diminish the dumb is a win in my life, especially when it comes to legitimate safety issues.

Like I suggested then, you are talking about the laws that qualify a person to live in a particular glory not necesarily the laws that exist for that person after they enter that state of glory, right? If there are any laws for that matter. Christ satisfies the demand of the laws; D&C 76; "106 These are they who are cast down to hell and suffer the wrath of Almighty God, until the fulness of times, when Christ shall have subdued all enemies under his feet, and shall have perfected his work; 107 When he shall deliver up the kingdom, and present it unto the Father, spotless, saying: I have overcome and have trodden the wine-press alone, even the wine-press of the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God." ...talking about the telestial folks. The law that they abided as well as the laws they fail to abide are during this life, then they suffer an eternal torment in spirit prison until the fulness of times, at which time Christ overcomes all and the price of their sins has been paid in full by their suffering in hell (spirit prison). LDS.org, Doctrines of the Gospel student manual chapter 33; "2.The inhabitants of the telestial kingdom will include those who were murderers, liars, sorcerers, adulterers, and whoremongers—in general, the wicked people of the earth (see D&C 76:103; Revelation 22:15). These inhabitants of the telestial kingdom will have become clean through their suffering so that they can abide telestial glory." ... and ... "The inhabitants of the telestial kingdom will suffer the wrath of God and be cast into hell until the end of the Millennium (see D&C 76:84, 104–6; 2 Nephi 28:15)." Talmage; "In the telestial world there are innumerable degrees comparable to the varying light of the stars. Yet all who receive of any one of these orders of glory are at last saved, and upon them Satan will finally have no claim” (James E. Talmage, The Articles of Faith, 91–92)." Satan has no claim on those that make it to the Telestial Kingdom, so I not sure what "laws" would need to be there in that Kingdom, if you are using the word "laws" in the sense of a law that is associated with justice and punishment. There are laws of truth there as it is a degree of glory but nothing suggests there is going to be any failure to follow the instructions they are given such that there needs to be a "law" attached with a punishment.

Anathema Republicans!

I believe that, technically, speaking four languages is quadrangular. Or tetrahedronic. Something like that.

That would be, um, quadrilateral, right?

@person0 I want to suggest you spy on them until you can arrange to 'naturally' become acquainted elsewhere, thus reducing the weirdness of a stranger asking about their enjoyment of their home. But a lot of my silliness is taken seriously online, so I will instead say no, don't approach them for my sake.

I say that about colored gel pens. I have an obsession with them.

You've heard more or less correct. Career criminals getting picked up in limousines at prison gates, so their places can go to people unlucky enough to have been nabbed by police on the fringes of riots. Since Starmer and his gang took over there's been little else in the media. A lot of people are not happy about it one bit.