Leaderboard

Winning isn't the only issue. Women have been getting injured by bio males in such frequency that the UN finally called for a ban. The document is called "Violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences" https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n24/249/94/pdf/n2424994.pdf Section III (Manifestations of violence against women and girls in sports), item A (Physical violence), paragraph 7: "Female athletes are also more vulnerable to sustaining serious physical injuries when female-only sports spaces are opened to males,9 as documented in disciplines such as in volleyball,10 basketball11 and soccer.12 Instances have been reported where adult males have been included in teams of underage girls. 13 Injuries have included knocked-out teeth,14 concussions resulting in neural impairment,15 broken legs16 and skull fractures.17 According to scientific studies, males have certain performance advantages in sports. One study asserts that, even in non-elite sport, “the least powerful man produced more power than the most powerful woman” and states that, where men and women have roughly the same levels of fitness, males’ average punching power has been measured as 162 per cent greater than females. 18" The link will provide details to footnotes 9-18, if anyone is interested. Here's a really, REALLY good article about problems and good solutions: https://womeninsport.org/safe-and-fair-sport-for-women-and-girls/

That's because you're not a woman. Honestly, it doesn't really matter how this particular debate goes, or any debate goes. Here's how the footnote of history will read: - The humans of planet earth have all shared the same definition for man and woman throughout recorded history. Outliers have always existed. - Somewhere in the early to mid 21st century, some folks thought they had a better definition, a better way to better include some of the outliers. - The other 99.9999999% of the population said "ok, persuade me". - Y'all made your best case. A couple of scholarly things about how gender is a spectrum. Many opinions advanced and arguments made about how thinking binary isn't the best way. Endless, endless nasty tricks involving intimidation tactics, algorithm boosting, appeals to emotion, accusations of bigotry, lobbying, high-pressure tactics. In a small handful of the 1st world nations, it was effective enough to swing elections and get policies changed. Folks didn't want to see themselves on the wrong end of "you can either have a living son or a dead daughter". Folks didn't want to be the victim of cancel culture. Folks all want to be thought of inclusive and loving and morally just, so they went along with it. Plus, after having spent endless millenia with a definition that was never questioned, nobody had a rapid response to any of it. - The notion, at its height, persuaded upwards of 8-12% of the world's humans, mostly found in the richest and most egalitarian nations. - The majority of humans never found the proposals and redefinitions convincing. The humans largely discarded the notion, and by 2027 there were no further serious threats to the traditional definition of sex and gender. Many humans did learn to be a bit more understanding of outliers. But the radical redefinition of words and culture to account for them never reached critical mass.

A) Putting myself in the place you describe for yourself: I would rather be called anything and everything than live in a world where speech was compelled or banned. B) I would get a new job before submitting to compelled speech. C) If you think you can't get a new job, work harder, better, more honestly, with more integrity. You'll have no problem finding new work. The word "having", by definition, includes a willingness to use force, which means, by definition, taking away rights.

If it didn't, you wouldn't have used the word "having".

The human brain is hardwired to seek for patterns, and will even begin assembling patterns where none exists. In this case, there's enough in the way of controversial and horrific incidents involving LGBT individuals and children to where even a reasonable person could start forming a pattern. For example, for the past few years there have been incidents where drag shows not only invited young children (re: pre-teen and younger) to be audience but where these shows even had such young children *as performers*. Or we had the bit where the people in charge of Drag Queen Story Time for the Houston, Texas public library system didn't actually run proper background checks and so a convicted offender was able to work with the kids for about six months. Or we've had media that was clearly inappropriate for children being aimed at children. Et cetera. That's *on top of* a group of LGBT individuals who made a viral video in which they sang a song called "We're Coming For Your Children". Most people who are LGBT just want to live in peace, and are just as horrified about these events. But so long as they keep happening, they'll be a metaphorical bloody shirt.

That is exactly what is happening in girls sports from high school to the Olympics. Yes, the left is often prone to self-destructive behavior. Case in point: Trans surgeries and chemical castration. It does not necessarily mean less for others. But where DIE is concerned, it has overwhelmingly meant exactly that. And what about the women being harrassed? They just need to "toughen up"? No. The individual with male genitals should simply "toughen up" and go to the men's room to protect the women. Actually, reverse that. I was at the urinal when a woman came casually walking in there. All the men found a miraculous ability to eliminate very quickly. We all got out of there fast. What was she doing there? The women's room was full and she needed a toilet.

Believe it or not, I don't like price-gouging any more than you do, and I have great contempt for those who would put their personal profit above the lives of their fellow beings. But I also realize that our concept of property ownership extends to intellectual property, and in the end the idea of patenting ideas makes us all a lot richer and better off in the long run. Since patents are 20 years long, that means that those who patent a technology or idea get almost a full human generation to profit from it before it goes into the public domain. Now, if you convince me that the last 150 years of technological advancement would have taken place even if patents had not existed, I will gladly rethink my devotion to IP law. The idea of IP makes sense only if it is a net positive for humanity. I believe it is, which is why I support IP. But that means that someone who patents a better, cheaper method to create insulin gets to jack up the price to whatever the market will support. Of course, when the patent expires, competitors can create far cheaper insulin, and the masses will benefit. If instead you take away the right to profit from one's inventions, what makes you think anyone will possibly go to the expense of figuring out how to mass-produce insulin? Who in his right mind will spend five billion dollars to create a new technology with no guarantee that his legally protected ability to make his research/development money back will even exist? There is a much better alternative. That alternative is called Zion, where the pure in heart love each other as they do themselves and gladly spend their lives and time in service of each other. But we're not there yet, and I don't see us ever being there in this life on this sphere. So the profit motive rules in earthly mortal transactions. tl;dr—If Trump has signed an EO to allow greedy pharmeceutical companies to rake in profits from the patents they secured through their own research and development, well, good for Trump. That means that we, the hoi polloi, will always be one generation behind what the rich folks get. But it also guarantees that in a generation, my grandchildren will have inexpensive access to what my own children couldn't get because my wife and I were too poor to afford it. So we step our way up, which may be frustrating and unfair, but is far better than the alternative of not moving up at all. I swear that the curse of the green-eyed monster is a greater evil even than the curse of the selfish, soulless rich man.

In family scripture study this week (we are redoing the BoM), it was suggested that maybe the Liahona was coated in small writing; and maybe one would only notice it had “changed” if one made a habit of studying it closely on a routine basis. As to the pointers, I’ve entertained the notions that the second pointer may have pointed: —To “intermediate” objectives—not campsites, but hunting locations or water sources or to the current whereabouts of wandering livestock that had been left to forage; —To a cardinal direction (true north or true east); —The way back to Jerusalem.

Here's the context of my question. We generally define the sealing power as binding in heaven what is bound on earth, though there is a specific sealing ordinance performed in the temple. Joseph Smith said this: "Why send Elijah? Because he holds the keys of the authority to administer in all the ordinances of the Priesthood; and [unless] the authority is given, the ordinances could not be administered in righteousness.” This took place in April of 1836. Peter, James, and John restored the Melchizedek priesthood in 1829, about 7 years earlier. So Melchizedek priesthood ordinances, which possess a type of sealing power in and of themselves, were being performed long before Elijah's return. Now, it can be argued that even the Melchizedek priesthood came from Elijah since he was the one who gave it to Peter, James, and John on the Mount of Transfiguration. But that brings me back to my question: What exactly did Elijah restore in the Kirtland temple? Was is just the keys to performing sealing ordinances or maybe even all priesthood ordinances in relation to the dead? Our doctrine seems to teach something more broad than that but I haven't yet been able to define what exactly that is considering the surrounding circumstances.

I don't know how many more ways I can tell you that this is not the case In this particular case, the fault is mine. My apologies. I missed the second "that" in the following: That was careless of me. Shame on me for not going over what I had read, spotting my error, and removing the false accusations. Yeah, that actually changes the tenor of the first part of your argument quite a bit. I think what I wrote later (and not on that particular topic of your wording) is still valid, but I freely concede I messed up in that initial thing, which really taints the whole response. It was a sheer misreading of what you wrote. Again, I am sorry about that. I'm usually a pretty close reader. Not this time.

Must keep mouth closed. The Lord cannot come soon enough.

Exactly. Members of the LGBTQ+ community hate abuse in their community as much as LDS hate abuse in ours. We tend to hate it more when it happens in our backyard because it makes all of us look bad. That’s why clean cops hate dirty cops more than civilians do.

Around noon, the temp warmed up. The snowman melted enough to allow the upper balls to fall down. We couldn't put humpty dumpty back together again becuase there wasn't enough snow left. We waited until the temps went down again (too much slush). We could only use three balls in the reconstruction.

Wag the dog.

This was along the same lines as another theory which went along with the previous one that I cited. One pointed the direction they were to go. The other pointed to a symbol indicating what they would find there (food, water, ores, protection from weather, etc.).

It's unclear to me. The first thought I had is something that would be highly unpopular among Elon Musk worshippers in the forum. However, from the same people that I've talked to (who have worked with him somewhat), I would say that Elon acts extremely autistic sometimes. This means that he may not be all to sharp in his personal skills and his relations with others. It could truly be that he meant what he said and was trying to show it (in a way an autistic individual may think is appropriate in public, but most would see it as inappropriate). It appears he is doing it from a very heartfelt manner, and he does appear to be trying to grab his heart and show it is out to everyone out there. On the otherhand... Is he really that out of touch? The timing, the mannerism, and how he did it is exactly the same way that some clips of Hitler show him doing it. That's awfully suspicious. Furthermore, with his recent comments regarding German Politics and it's linking to the Neo Nazi movements there...it's particularly poor timing and many would see this as confirmation that he actually is supporting those who are supremacists there...and obviously now in the US. Regardless of what the reason was, it is now seen as being done in extremely poor tastes. This shouldn't be something discussed on the first day of a Presidency when so much more is going on (for example, Trump just signed the EO to do away with Birthright Citizenship. Protecting the meaning and value of American Citizenship This should turn interesting very quickly. 22 states have already filed a lawsuit about this. Many other things are afoot in the government.

I think I beat them all to this idea several months ago, before the election took place. It's about when I said it was highly possible Trump would win. I also added that he was at least an Anti-Christ if not the Anti-Christ (there are many Anti-Christ, one does not have to be THE Anti-Christ to be Anti-Christ. That said, he's probably the closest candidate we have currently for the position of THE Anti-Christ. There's actually a clause that says one does not have to swear on the Bible. Article VI section 3 (or clause, if you will).

My rights matter more than theirs because I am LGBTQ and BIPOC. I can attach more letters to make it more convincing, if needed. Interesting, though. Why do you suppose that their rights matter more than mine? Because you clearly don't believe I'm LGBTQ or BIPOC, and you're fighting against me. What have I ever done to you? (Besides make snarky and sometimes unkind comments on a discussion board.) Here's an item I can't see that you've ever considered: There is no such thing as homosexual rights, or women's rights, or black rights, or trans rights, or animal rights, or asteroid rights, or protozoa rights. These things are meaningless. Rights, in the sense we are talking about, apply only to human beings. Only. All humans have a given right, or else it is not a right. We may proscribe certain rights in certain circumstances, but the fundamental idea of a "right" is not some mutable thing that attaches only to certain classes. Is there a freedom that applies to a human? Then it's a right, and it applies to all humans. Sex, height, race, preferred sexual perversion, or state of dental hygiene simply does not apply. Example: Freedom of religious belief and practice is a human right. The next question is: Under what circumstances do we proscribe rights? Which is a fascinating area, one I don't pretend to be informed enough on to write an essay at the moment. But it should be kept front and center in our minds that the various _________ Right movements, where the blank is replaced with some word, generally makes sense only when the word is "human". And when the rights of two people appear to be at odds, we stack rank the rights and adjudicate the higher-ranked right as more fundamental in that particular case, and thus more in need of protection. This is why elective-abortion-on-demand is such a contentious topic: One side insists that the protection of innocent life is the more fundamental right, while the other insists that absolute self-determination, even undoing a freely chosen path at the cost of an innocent life, is actually the more fundamental right. (Or the second party avoids the argument by disputing the term "life" as applied to the unborn, which magically makes the argument *poof* go away.) Example: Honor killing your daughter because that's part of your religion is not a human right, because your daughter's right to life in this case is much more fundamental than your right to practice your religion by exercising the behavior that would kill her. As long as you maintain the attitude that a "right" is whatever anyone says it is, and that your role is to hear both sides proclaim why their "rights" are more important than someone else's "rights" and then decide who you find more convincing, the issue can never be settled in a reasonable way, long-term or even short-term. If "backlash" means that people like yourself get sour expressions on their faces and perhaps even call us nasty names, then I agree. If "backlash" means people seek my employment or try to expose me publically to mob action, then your anarchic roots are showing all too clearly and illustrate why people consider anarchism to be the hideous monster it is. Note also that the basic function of government is to defend rights, that is, to secure the rights. The function of government is never to provide the rights. This is fundamentally why the people who annoyingly proclaim "Health care is a RIGHT!" are ignored by most conservatives. Engaging in exchange, whether educational, social, or financial, is indeed a right, so the possibility to offer or secure health care is protected by right. But to have health care given to you? That's no more a right than sitting in your house and insisting that food be brought to you. There is no such thing as a right to make someone else your slave.

OK, good to know. I didn't have time to start it today, but I'll try it tomorrow.

Even cis men can do basic logic. ??? "What is a woman?" "None of your business!" Really? So...an appendectomy? Tonsillectomy? Mole removal? Or does it have to be on the genitalia? If a man is circumcised, does he get to claim legal status as a woman? This is not just a parlor game. We have laws that apply specifically to/for women. We have deeply ingrained societal customs, taboos, and courtesies. If you legally do away with all societal concerns, you emasculate (there's that pesky sex reference) society's ability to reign in less refined impulses, which after all is the whole duty of society. This is open social engineering on a draconic scale—exactly what all those heretofore tagged as "conspiracy nuts" have been claiming for almost two generations. Are you actually openly conceding their point? Because that's what it sounds like. Cool. You trust my instincts about my own body, which I assume includes my instincts about my own race. Thus, you will never object, publically or privately, that I call myself African-American (and Cherokee, and Latino/a/x, and Polynesian, etc.) when applying for race-based scholarships or assistance or literally anything else. If I am to be sentenced to prison for a sex-related crime, I can insist that I am a woman and must be housed with other women. I can insist that I am only seven years old, and that therefore I cannot be charged with a felony. Better yet, I can insist that I am seventeen, so whatever punishment you may give me has to be lifted by my next birthday (which, by rights, I also get to choose). This is your vision for a perfect society, or at least the logical extension of your trust in my instincts to define every aspect of what I "am", including such heretofore immutable traits such as sex or race. Right? If not, please carefully explain which things I listed are wrong, why they are wrong, and how that accords with your statement about how you trust people's instincts about their own bodies.

What exactly is "the process of becoming a woman", if a woman has only otherwise been defined (as you do above) as "born female"? Because I know of no "process" by which a man can become "born female". You can't define a woman as "someone who has become a woman". That's circular, and thus not meaningful. Also, who determines whether the erstwhile male has truly become a woman, so that we know for sure whether the man who attempted the as-yet-undefined transition to womanhood succeeded? Or does the "can also be" mean something other than I have assumed? No need for the histrionics. I gave perfectly reasonable examples, and not all of them tilted against "your side". Or did you just happen to blink at the wrong time and miss the "fornicators" part? In any case, what I stated was obviously saddled with emotionally laden judgmental wording intentionally, to make the contrast as stark as possible. (And for the record, I was seeking to make a stark contrast, not to bad-mouth "your side". I realize my wording together with some incidents in my past responses to you might have suggested otherwise, so I'm clearing the air here. I included at least one parody of "my side" as well as of "your side", and at least one example that was not "sided" at all.) I notice you didn't answer the implicit question: How does your example make or reinforce or in any way even touch on your "case"? That really was all I was trying to ask. Absolutely. That is the point. I am not sure what the world's continued spin has to do with how we judge these things. Yet you offer the fact of the world's unrelenting rotational inertia as some sort of evidence of the validity of your argument. I'm hoping you'll enlighten us as to how your statement buttresses your position. FTR, that feeling about Trump exists among his supporters as well as his detractors. Many Trump supporters laud him as a far better leader than the alternative offered, while holding no delusion as to his standing as a religious man or an example of sexual probity.

Science seems to be greatly misunderstood by certain elements in our upcoming generation. For your benefit I will be specific. All preferences are controlled and monitored by and through the cortex areas of the brain – this includes sexual preferences. Much of the brain’s operations have been mapped for decades and yet, despite all the actual science, the American Psychiatric Association in 1973 declared that same sex relations were not an “mental condition”. This was done without a single scientific reference. It was this declaration upon which it was determined that (by congressional) law that sexual preferences were not to be treated. It has long been proven through science research that the cortex oversees learned behaviors – much of this research goes all the way back to Pavlov’s dog and the research done by Skinner. Not only do we know (scientifically) that the cortex behaviors are learned but also that the executive functions of the cortex are not fully developed until age 25. This means that all preferences or any behaviors controlled by the cortex are not innate and learned but also that an individual is incapable of exercising executive functions to determine on their own. I honestly think the above paragraph is a bunch of bunk. There has never been a time on this planet when wealth was more evenly spread and available to the populus than this current modern era – especially here in the USA (Where even the poor on welfare live better – with better amenities and health care than the Pharaohs of Egypt) – and as well in other western cultures. The same is true of racism. The western civilizations are more open to race than any historical civilization or any where else. As far as materialism – that is a construct of all civilization. Eliminate materialism and you will eliminate civilization. As for capitalism – there are no records of any civilization more advanced and freer. This does not mean that there are no quarks or improvements to be incorporated into capitalism. I have posted previously that compound interest is the number 1 division of economic class (all class division?) in today’s society – and compound interest is a left-over construct of something invented long before any experiments in capitalism. I believe we can solve 95% of our your concerns with capitalism by eliminating compound interest. And regardless of what system you may favor as long as there is any employment of compound interest, the result will be just as bad or much worse – there will be no improvement. The Traveler

In that vein... I tend to believe that those who are baptized for the dead will find salvation based on the same criteria as those who are baptized in this life. It isn't about being sinless -- none of us are. It is about being humble enough to constantly be open to learning the truth. It is about being humble enough to continue repenting based on the new truths we learn. It is about humbling ourselves enough to allow the Atonement to heal us from sin. ... and being determined enough to continue these things through all eternity.

Nor do you need to prove it, unless you want to impose that belief on someone else. Want to call your boyfriend "she" and pretend he's having a period? I mean, you do you. Want to pass legislation to normalize that sort of belief? Yeah, no. That's a no-go. You want to pass such a law, you must convince most of the rest of us that you're not just spouting worthless (or much worse than worthless) nonsense. On a strictly societal level, no one cares about either your tender feelings or your preferred perversions. Believe what you will. But don't impose your stupidities on the rest of us. That's the social contract that we maniacal, starry-eyed theists live under, and you get to join us there.

Men who forcibly rape their daughers have always existed, and the world has kept spinning. Attempts at genocide have always existed, and the world has kept spinning. Condemnation of fornicators (defined as those who engage in illegitimate sexual relations) has always existed, and the world has kept spinning. Vivisecting innocent animals for the fun of watching them suffer to death has always existed, and the world has kept spinning. Hatred of those stinking bleeding-heart liberal fools has always existed, and the world has kept spinning. People who act like antisocial jerks have always existed, and the world has kept spinning. Somehow, your case just isn't very strong. Or else I don't understand what your case is, which I grant is a distinct possibility.

The fallen state of mortality is also a state of misery. Yet few are willing to give up this life of misery just because they do not know that much about joy - especially the joys of living according to the laws, ordinances and covenants of G-d. I do enjoy our conversations - but before you consider certain extensions of thought – those that are willing to sacrifice a broken heart and contrite spirit understand that we will remain miserable until the resurrection. It is by faith in Christ and the joy of resurrection that we can experience parts of joy and have faith in the fullness of joy. The Traveler

This is a "reaction video" by Stick of Joseph. (They give a summary starting at 1:28:48). Highlights: This team that was interviewed indicated that they found a large trove with several teams who had artifacts and books similar to their findings. It is full of Hebrew markings (like the Tetragrammaton) and symbology (that appears to be similar to temple liturgy -- like ascending three levels to the Menorah/Tree of Life, temple columns < 2 Chron 3:17> leading to the Tree of Life which is kept in the Celestial Kingdom). The records found were of both lead and gold. The lead plates were larger plates because it was a less precious metal. But it is not subject to corrosion. Gold plates only contained the most precious things of God because gold was so expensive. But they would not be dimmed with time. (Notice that the "dimming" is not about translation or transcription, but of chemical corrosion). They mention that things like this would undoubtedly be kept by the "losers of the battle of ideas" because the winners would have destroyed all the ideas they disagreed with. The losers had to take their records with them as they fled Israel. And isn't it interesting that some of the losers ideas are now available? We've been saying this for 200 years. But not a single one of them thought to talk to a Latter-day Saint about this? --- I should admit that these are new discoveries. As such, many wonder if these are fakes. But it seems that the debate will take some time before resolution.

Yeah, wish it were true.

I think you meant: https://comicskingdom.com/curtis/2025-01-19 The question is, in essence: What is the nature of our consciousness and perception, especially our proprioception (used in a generalized way)? This may seem spitballing or eighth-grade level philosophy to some, but I don't think so. We Latter-day Saints believe that we lived as conscious individuals before our mortal birth (and not merely in our fetal state). Yet we have no good idea about or even solid models for what that "pre-existence" may have looked like. Honestly, it may well have looked very much like our mortal life today. I suspect it bore more resemblance to our mortal experience than we realize. I also suspect that "it", our premortal experience, was experience in separable and perhaps discrete phases, such that our mortal life might possibly be considered as another phase in that process. As for the actual question posed, I suspect that each "phase" of our eternal lives is well-marked, and we are not left with any questions about whether we are here or there. But that's my own philosophy, so who knows? Maybe some people die and it takes them hours or years to figure it out.

Once a person dies, their new reality will be so significantly different from this moral earth life that they will know almost immediately.

During and after my mission, I enthusiastically read every Ensign I could get my hands on. By the time I was 40 or so, I had a complete collection of Ensigns going back to January 1971, the first issue. (I got rid of almost all of them about three years ago, when my wife insisted/begged that I do so. I kept the January 1971 edition, because it had a "flexidisc", a recording of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, as it was then called. One of these days, I will get my hands on a phonograph, carefully remove the flexidisc from the magazine, and play it.) Sadly, I rarely read the Ensign or (now) the Liahona. I might be tempted to say that I don't have time for that, but the fact is that I don't make time for it. My loss.

The Liahona was more than just a compass. From 1 Ne 16:27-29 we learn that it also had the capacity to display printed text. “it was written and changed from time to time, according to the faith and diligence which we gave unto it. And thus we see that by small means the Lord can bring about great things.” I have no idea if it was like a computer screen, magic 8 ball, or if the brass surface could be repeatedly inscribed. Curious workmanship indeed.

Clarke's third law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. This I believe. The word "compass" originates from the Latin compassus, "step together". It was originally used to designate devices used to create and measure circles, and only relatively late (1300s) was applied to navigating by means of a magnetic spindle. It is interesting and seemingly anachronistic that the Liahona, an instrument of direction, should be described in the Book of Mormon as a "compass". (I don't find it anachronistic, any more than I find an English translation of any other ancient document anachronistic because, hey, English didn't even exist back then!) Interestingly, both meanings are used in the endowment as a description of a certain mark on the Priesthood garment. Apropos of nothing in particular.

Yeah. The point the video above was not whether they were real or not. They admitted that they didn't know at the time. It was a "reaction video"

I remember reading an article somewhere, where a geologist weighed in on the seerstone when they released the pictures of it. Essentially, where it was discovered, it would be completely impossible for it naturally form. Meaning at some point in history it was placed where Joseph would find it. It's possible that that holds no bearing on your question whatsoever but it's something to consider. Additionally when he used it for treasure seeking, it was an angel who told him to stop using it for this purpose. I think its easy to put together a case for the seer stone being divine. I think its discovery was one of many events that had to take place to prepare Joseph for the prophetic mantle. At the end of the day compare it to Moses' staff. Nobody seriously believes his staff had the power to create water from stone, and turn into a snake. That power came from God. The seer stone was Josephs equivalent of Moses staff. In that respect, the only limitation is what God allows to happen, as the power comes from him, not the stone.

The context of Ether 3:23 had led me to believe that the Jaredite U&T was just two of the clear stones the Brother of Jared had previously created. But you're right, the text doesn't explicitly say that. The U&T that Joseph Smith recovered from the stone box as shown to him by Moroni, seems to have been the Jaredite U&T. See D&C 17:1. And yes, I don't think the Church has ever come out and said (or even hinted) that it still has that relic. So, this is Rough Stone Rolling, p. 70: Lucy Smith said that Joseph received the interpreters again on September 22, 1828, and that he and Emma did a little translating, but the need to prepare for winter intervened.46 [Footnote 46] [cites Lucy Mack Smith, Biological Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet and his Progenitors for Many Generations. Liverpool, Eng.: S.W Richards, 1853., 125-126. Although the assertion clashes with other accounts, David Whitmer said Moroni did not return the Urim and Thummim in September. Instead Joseph used a seerstone for the remaining translation. Kansas City Journal, June 19, 1881, Omaha Herald, Oct 17, 1886; Interview (1885), in Whitmer, Interviews, 72, 157, 200. Of the translation process, Emma said, "The first that my husband translated, was translated by the use of the Urim and Thummim, and that was the part that Martin Harris lost, after that he used a small stone, not exactly black, but was rather a dark color." Emma Smith Bidamon to Emma Pilgrim, Mar 27, 1870 in EMD [Dan Vogel. ed. Early Mormon Documents, 5 vols. Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1996-2003], 1:532 I don't recall the BoM suggesting that the Liahona led Lehi or any Lehite to a pair of Nephite interpreters--am I missing something? It does seem like a pretty safe bet that the Nephite kings had some sort of interpreters, because Mosiah I is able to read the Jaredite stone (Omni 1:20) and Ammon later tells Limhi that Mosiah has one and is therefore a seer (Mosiah 8). Maybe that was the Liahona, maybe it was something else--I'm not aware of the text specifying. But Mosiah still chooses to use the Jaredite interpreters (which Limhi's people had found along with the 24 gold plates) to translate the Jaredite record (Mosiah 28). Joseph seems to have evolved to the point where considered any sort of physical media to be an inferior means of receiving revelation.

Sorry but this was proven to b a hoax sometime last year.

Three thoughts. At work I wear a black t-shirt over my garment top. A set of body armor over that and a dark blue uniform shirt over that. I wear dark blue pants. I wear black boots. I wear gear on a duty belt that is all black. Needless to say I am hot and uncomfortable year round for at least 40 hours a week. I have no patience for people who whine that their garments are hot and/or uncomfortable. I am eligible to wear black garments. Really...I am. I choose not to. I most likely will continue to wear the same mesh I've been wearing for decades.

Now the left is going crazy because Trump didn't place his hand on the Bible during the inauguration. People are making some baseless claims" He's the Anti-Christ/Devil. No oath, not really the President. No oath, he can't be impeached. Uhmmm... Since when did the left start caring about the Bible?

Oh yes, that does sound fun.

Nazi!!!