Leaderboard

Again, you're absolutely correct, and yet, it's hard to hear you over the screams of history where so many leftist movements turned into murderous nationalist fascist totalitarian things. Nobody starts out wanting to turn into Stalin or Hitler or Pol Pot or whoever wrecked Venezuela or Argentina. They all start out like you. Again, it's a difference in understanding how humans work. Your collectivist and socialist notions will all work just fine, as long as everyone does their part to make them work. And those who don't need to be handled somehow. And the more power you and yours gain, the more tempting it is to put scary scare quotes around the word "handled", because the handling gets more and more scary. Already you're realizing how difficult your utopian dream of single payer healthcare will be. You think it won't happen in your lifetime. And yet, should some strong movement from the left show up with enough support to force it, I'm thinking you'd jump on board. Even though some of the tactics might not be to your liking. Even though some of the methods might be a tad harsh or distasteful to you. Government force becomes a distasteful and rare thing, then a necessary thing, then the norm. Over and over and over again. Throughout history. Lots of places. Because it's human nature. And should your dream turn into a dystopian nightmare, and need to be overthrown, then folks like Johnson Jones will describe what happened by copying and pasting a bunch of stuff with the word "socialism" in it, in order to claim it wasn't really socialism.

How we ought to rejoice that this Firstborn Son in the spirit was willing to become the Only Begotten Son in the flesh, to suffer incomprehensibly and die ignominiously to redeem us. He perfectly unites justice and mercy. He saves us from—not in, but from—our sins. And He also redeems us from the Fall, from spiritual and physical death. He opens the door to immortality and eternal life. It would be impossible to plumb the depths of His love. - D. Todd Christofferson Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the Lord Jehovah is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation. Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation. - Isaiah 12:2-3

I also think about the notion of sanctification, which is the act of taking something that isn't holy, and making it holy. We sanctify bread and water for the sacrament. It doesn't really matter what we start with - MRE cracker, any type of bread, gluten free cracker for folks with dietary needs. When we sanctify it, it is now a worthy symbol of the flesh of Christ. When we sanctify ourselves or our actions, we show up fallen sinful humans. We go through the process of sanctification, whatever it might be, and we or our actions become sanctified, holy, worthy. Closely related to having our garments washed white through the blood of the lamb. We engage in intentional acts or behavior or thoughts, and the absolving/removing power is provided by the atonement. Still a fan of this painting, called "sanctification". It seems to really capture the notion of becoming holy and pure as a process, even though some consequences or scars or character traits may remain. https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/jan-fisher?lang=eng&fbclid=IwY2xjawHJUZhleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHQMQyHLhZpWDWZwQDI7UmOYpvTW8wRa-pAEuLKVyqYRW3uGJXsAj9dZZGg_aem_R2GwS18fWkk5DPplFBRCmw#1

Let's just ditch the effort to compare modern American political sensiblities to the symbol of governmental overreach, itself. The bottom line is that "as we commonly use the term today" it is a word with no meaning, but powerful negative connotation. In other words, it is simply a slander word with no meaning whatsoever. It's much more profitable to debate individual policies and laws/actions.

Re: Ketanji Brown Jackson

In the LDS faith do we make a distinction between forgiveness of sins and remission of sins? The AI generated response to the question of what's the difference (not specifically LDS) says this: While often used interchangeably, "forgiveness" generally refers to the act of letting go of resentment or anger towards someone who has wronged you, while "remission of sins" implies a more legalistic concept, signifying the complete removal or cancellation of one's sins, often used in a religious context to describe the act of God "wiping away" sins through Jesus Christ's sacrifice; essentially, "remission" denotes a more absolute and final release from the consequences of sin, whereas "forgiveness" can involve a personal emotional process of letting go of negative feelings towards someone who has offended you. If we look up Remission of Sins in the LDS guide to the scriptures it kind of just equates it with forgiveness: Forgiveness for wrongdoing upon condition of repentance. But it seems like from our viewpoint we do make a distinction between simply saying that the consequences of our sins are removed vs the sin itself is in essence removed. Is there really a distinction to be made here? Are they just different ways of describing the same thing? Or is there a distinction but different terms need to be used?

Maybe I'll look up what you mentioned before when I have a bit more time.

The basic concept of right verses left is about government control. The far right would be anarchy and everyone for themselves. The far left is the opposite – total government control and dominance. I consider myself a libertarian which is a limited government with powers to enforce laws enacted by the majority of the citizens - which is under civilian oversight. In the USA we have two parties that are vying for power so they can enact laws that gives them control over that part of society that does not agree with them. I personally consider both democrats and republicans as extreme leftists. I consider libertarians, like myself, as true centrists. I believe that our founding fathers were best defined as libertarians. More control to government is left leaning – less control is right leaning. Bigger government is left leaning – less government is right leaning. Defining or recognizing racial differences (racism) is left leaning – racial blindness is right leaning. Equal opportunity is right leaning – equity of outcome is left leaning. Entitlements are left leaning – individual charity is right leaning. Privilege is left leaning – responsibility is right leaning. I could go on but to me what encourages and allows individual contribution and responsibility is right wing leaning. What forces individual contribution through government powers of enforcement of laws is left wing leaning. I realize that there is a proclivity to muddle terms to hide and confuse. I believe definitions should be simple and easy to apply. When definitions become contradictory and confusing it is a mistake driven by an intent to beguile and mislead. The Traveler

This post will be of low value for most people. I'm always looking for new ways to explain what's going on with you humans. Here's an attempt to explain how cultural "vibes" are changing. Studying and quantifying culture is rarely life-changingly important, but thinking about how it evolves can occasionally help explain what's happening. Remember, we're talking cultural vibes. This isn't peak science. Hipster/Indie: "kill whitey", blackface jesus, messy hair, apathy, & lethargy. Vibe seized by Dems to elect Obama. Post-internet/Techno: Cancel culture, #metoo movement, occupy wall street. Gen Y thinks Jerry Seinfeld is part of the problem. Hypebeast/Woke: Protests, rise of occupy democrats, white privilege, gender theory and the rise of the TQIA+, we all enter lockdown to watch our children fail and the cities burn and hope someone ends Jordan Peterson before it's too late. Pilled/Scene: "Pilled" refers to the choice offered to Neo in the Matrix. Evolved into Red Pill (up with truth, down with gender theory), Blue Pill (whatever, man, I got a lot going on), Black Pill (nihilism, incels, bored doomscrolling), Green Pill (environmentally on-board), and Pink pill (choosing the bear, only fans is respectable now). Scene: Influencer life, touching grass, gaining your stupid serotonin boost for the week, Beluga, brainrot and the word "sus". What good is all of this? Maybe not much, but at least it shows the TQIA+ folks aren't revamping culture much any more. And you'll hear less and less about white privilege. And corporate America will be less invested in DEI. Folks who yell 'genocide' don't really bother every one else any more.

Forgiveness is something that mortals do. Remission of sins is done by the Holy Ghost via the power of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. "The ordinance of the sacrament is a holy and repeated invitation to repent sincerely and to be renewed spiritually. The act of partaking of the sacrament, in and of itself, does not remit sins. But as we prepare conscientiously and participate in this holy ordinance with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, then the promise is that we may always have the Spirit of the Lord to be with us. And by the sanctifying power of the Holy Ghost as our constant companion, we can always retain a remission of our sins." Always Retain a Remission of Your Sins, David A. Bednar, April 2016 conference. The Atonement allows Jesus to essentially expunge our sins. Expungement is a legal process that removes or seals criminal records, making them unavailable to the public. If you have a criminal record that gets expunged, and you are applying for a job you can legally state that you have never had a criminal record. Legally, the offense never occurred. Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ will not forget our sins. They know everything. But for all intents and purposes, they will act as if no sin occurred. We will be allowed to enter into the Celestial Kingdom completely clean - if we receive a remission of our sins. I hated the explanation I was given during a youth conference: Sin is like getting blood on a wedding dress. Repentance allows us to send the wedding dress to the best dry cleaner in town and have it cleaned so that no one can tell the difference. That is not true. The atonement essentially gives you a brand-new dress. The commonly recited LDS steps of repentance - do not have any basis in scripture. Recognize your sins Feel sorrow for your sins Forsake your sins Confess your sins Make restitution Forgive others Keep the commandments / Endure to the end Somehow it became a commonly recited process probably because some do-gooder wanted to break it down and make it into a business-type process. Try to find it in the scriptures. It ain't there. You can repent immediately from your sins. You do not need a 12-step process. Sometimes ideas / policy enters into the LDS vernacular / policy due to a misunderstanding or hope to do good. Take for example recycling. Recycling is a good thing right?

This is one (or both) of two separate questions: Do we as Latter-day Saints distinguish between the forgiveness and the remission of sins? Is there a difference between the forgiveness and the remission of sins? The answer to the first question is, I believe, no. To have our sins remitted is to gain divine forgiveness. I don't recall any teachings that explicitly distinguish between the two. The second question resembles a question that I heard bandied about in my childhood: Is there a difference between the unforgivable sin and the unpardonable sin? One speculation was that there was a difference, in the sense that a man adjudged guilty of a crime might nevertheless be paroled, perhaps even pardoned by the governor. He would remain a convicted felon, but the weight of penalty for his crime would have been lifted. By analogy, one might propose that a forgiveness of sin and a remission of sin each represent a specific way of dealing with the stain of sin, different somehow from the other. Looking back as a nearing-geriatric-age adult, I think I reject this distinction. I'll cast my lot in with the "no difference" folks.

My take is that the ultimate remission of sins comes when the Lord first forgives them and remembers them no more. This can only happen once it is established that the former sins do not return after they have been forgiven (D&C 58: 42 and 82:7). The repentance mentioned in the "Remission of Sins" in the Guide to the Scriptures has to involve the ordinances (which are intended to lead one on the path to the Holy Spirit of Promise): https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/remission-of-sins?lang=eng Remission of Sins "Forgiveness for wrongdoing upon condition of repentance. Remission of sins is made possible by the Atonement of Jesus Christ. A person obtains a remission of his sins if he has faith in Christ, repents of his sins, receives the ordinances of baptism and laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, and obeys God’s commandments (A of F 1:3–4)." Of course there is a stepwise process to this, and divine grace involved, so we can taste a bit and have a more excellent hope as we head toward that final state of perfection.

Most news sites like this allow a certain number of articles for free before they require a subscription. I've exceeded my share.

To a degree. To clarify, Nazi's in germany were Facists. General Wikipedia article on it at it's start wikipedia entry on Nazism Merriam-Webster on the differences between Facism and Socialism Merriam-Webster Difference between Facism and Socialism The Nazi's did have some socialistic items they used (in regards to industry and other areas), but in views and other areas, were more authoritarian and what one would consider Capitalistic as well, at least in a regard that they were more inline with Corporatism (as the US is becoming as we see large corporations gain more power and wealth which actually hinders a more true form [as I would see it] of capitalism from progressing). However, to claim Nazi's were champions of the Left or would be today, I think may not be portraying them exactly in the right light (haha...see what I did there?). They were also extremely far right in some areas as well (such as hierarchical positions of society and enforced views on races and discriminational activities [for example, one of the more notorious is their treatment of the Jewish people, along with others they considered undesirables).

An interesting and useful site - thanks @zil2

The irony I've actually been seeing, especially prior to his capture, was that overwhelmingly the younger conservatives I see in classes and such were in support of what the shooter did. It appears that many college students, especially conservative ones, have some pretty hefty concerns regarding healthcare...which also includes healthcare companies (and what some of them would term...death panels). I have no idea what the percentage is, but it is extremely high among the younger ones. The older conservatives...I was talking to one of my compatriots and they didn't even know what I was talking about. Another one didn't know much about it either, except that the news had mentioned it and that it was just another one of those New York crimes (you know, New York has a lot of crime, at least that's what she told me). I would say, overall, the younger folks are following it a lot closer than us older folks. They also seem to be more in a like minded way of seeing it (regardless of whether they are conservative or liberal).

I'm not sure I followed the entire conversation correctly, but if I understand right, you, as a Veteran have the ability to have a type of universal healthcare. The VA (at least until Trump guts it) currently has healthcare for Veterans who desire it. It's been awhile since I've gone to one (so, I'm not sure of all the protocols and costs, I have health insurance through work which covers 80% of costs...used to cover 100% until Obamacare destroyed the platinum plans...which I disliked tremendously), but I think it charges something around $25 per visit or per subscription or something to that effect for Veterans. I also hear that it will cover 100% of in-service injuries if one qualifies for them (I've heard it's a pain to try to do so). The sad thing about the VA is that how good your healthcare (from what I've seen) is directly proportional to how well they are funded. A well funded VA that has a decent money/doctor to Veteran ratio actually appears to have equal or superior healthcare to many healthcare industries around them. They also tend to have good connections to the community in case they need to do referrals. The same can also apply to Tri-care for those who have it. (Since this is a Church board, I hear that the one in Salt Lake City is actually pretty good of a VA center) On the otherhand, when it has a bad funds/Doctor to Veteran Ratio (I've heard some bad things about Oakland over the years, though perhaps it's improved), medical care tends to go down. In these instances, it can be far inferior to other forms of healthcare in the surrounding area. This should make obvious sense as to why, but it seems to elude various directors and government officials. Money invested and good Doctor to patient ratios make for better healthcare. Less money and bad Doctor to Patient ratio makes the quality of healthcare go down. There are several problems with the US healthcare system today. I know that my German relatives can see a Doctor very quickly, and for serious surgeries and operations they actually get in quicker to them than the average US citizen does. German healthcare (socialized...oooo...loook...there's a scary word for some Americans) actually does better than the US in many categories. There are several facets of this though. Part of the problem I see is that the Medical profession protects their paychecks. What I mean by this is that they keep the number of Doctors down on purpose (there are many ways they could increase the number of Doctors in the US, and educating them to have a greater number...but that would also decrease the amount of pay since supply and demand is always prevalent in a capitalistic society). However, that is actually small change to other factors which boosts costs even more, such as unreliable billing from Hospitals (and that isn't what the Hosptal bills, it's what the Hospital can reliable get...for example, they don't have guarantees that a patient will pay as care is billed afterwards. Due to this insecurity, they massively overcharge those that they can in order to make up the differences, as there are many that will not pay the bill afterwards). Other parts are that hospitals will pay for medical items and medications, but are being price gouged by pharmaceutical companies and medical equipment companies...so that when a basic piece of medical equipment that costs 10K to make, but the hospital has to pay 2 million to buy...well...guess how they are going to pay for that (actually, it's no secret, they pass it on to those that will pay the bills). There's a lot of rotteness in the medical system today, a lot of corruption, and a lot of wickedness and evil men (and women). However, that applies to many companies out there. The question is how much government reach do we want to allow to bring the medical industry to heel? Do we want the government to be allowed to dictate who our doctor is (and with the VA system, you are told who your primary care physician is, and it is only they who can refer you to other treatments, the same applies to those in the military and their military medical care. With Tri-care, you can have something similar as a retiree, though if you get Tricare standard (I think that's what it is) you do get a choice of your doctor, but then Tricare Standard only covers 80% of the costs) Right now I get to select a doctor and if I do not like the doctor, I can choose another doctor. If we went to single payer healthcare, I'm sure the costs associated with our medical care would go down, we probably would have a better care for those who don't have money or are poor, but our freedom of choice would go down as well, and the ability for those who do have money to get the best care would also be reduced as the healthcare would be spread out in a more general fashion (which probably would improve health in general nationally, only certain specific individuals would have healthcare go down). There are pros and cons to each type of situation.

Genesis 6:9 ¶ These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. There were actually a number of different words in the Bible that were all translated into the word perfect but each with different meanings. Even today the word "perfect" is often not used to mean literally flawless. Complete or thoroughly made is the original etymology of the word and remains a common use of the word. This doesn't prove Job is to be taken literally but it also doesn't disprove it either.

"Perfect" in the linguistic sense of "complete", e.g. the past perfect tense.

My thoughts completely

YouTube is blocking me because I have an ad blocker going, otherwise I'd have directly linked things already.

Isn't that the quarterback's job?

OK, I went home and tried looking it up. It is behind a paywall, not just an adwall. I can't read that one either.