Leaderboard

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

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

Strictly hypothetical, of course. A man and a woman, strangers to each other, are involved in a dispute (maybe road rage or parking anger). The woman is cursing at and berating the man, with the man trying to respond and perhaps yelling. The man turns to walk away, and the woman swings at him and hits him from behind on the side of the face. The man turns around and throws a straight right into her face, which does not knock her over (not a bonecrushing punch). 1. Justified? (Absolutely/Guess so/Can't tell/No way) 2. Ideal response? (Punch her/Stern lecture/Don't respond/Weep with sadness and plead for mercy) After she gets hit, the woman turns away. At this, the man grabs her from behind and "suplexes" her onto her head. The whole hitting incident, from her initial punch to his suplex, takes maybe two seconds, with the grabbing/suplex essentially a continuation of the straight right. 3. Justified? (Yes/Depends on whether she's paralyzed/No way) 4. Which, if either, should face battery charges? 5. BONUS QUESTION: Reverse the sexes and answer the above questions again.

Dude, I’m willing to bet that the majority of men in all generations still feel that way.

Dude, your daughter does that?!? LOVE IT

Reminds me of a comment my daughter's MMA instructor made. He observed that my kiddo was totally relaxed and smiling and friendly during the sparring, and said "these are the beasts you've gotta watch out for".

Yep, Mirk's video. - Yes, the woman was aggressing towards the female driver of the car. Dude wasn't just defending himself, but the female driver as well. \ - No, the woman doesn't "turn away". She is punched backwards. There is no indication given that she's done attacking. Dude is totally justified. Afterwards, the aggressor lady actually owned up to the altercation on social media, and commented on the video. Someone asked her "did you learn your lesson?", and she answered in the affirmative. My local small-town police chief tells the story about the only time he had ever been injured by a suspect in handcuffs. It was a 15 yr old girl. He had the cuffs on her and was firmly escorting her by the arm to his squad car. She used his arm as leverage to lift her ~80 lbs person up into the air, where she brought her entire weight down with her heel into his knee. He said he had a period of recuperation before returning to duty - I forget how many months.

BYU 91, Kansas 57 Ouch

[None of this is legal advice, in case you were wondering!] 1. Absolutely justified. 2. He has no duty to keep getting hit. Most likely (depending on jurisdiction) he does have a duty to retreat if possible. If counterattacking gives him a window for a safe retreat, IMHO, he should take the opportunity for a counterattack. 3. Seems excessive, but I’m not really into martial arts/combat and shouldn’t be second-guessing those who are. I suppose it’s justified if reasonably necessary to incapacitate the attacker while making his escape/retreat. 4. The woman. She attacked him from behind as he was de-escalating. 5. No difference. (Nor, for that matter, in cases where both parties are the same sex but have vastly different sizes.)

1. Probably justified, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. If someone turns the corner and only sees you slugging her, it’ll give them the wrong impression. 2. walk away. Not worth your time. Do you want to deal with being arrested, charged, maybe going viral, attacked by an angry mob, sued…. 3. Probably not. If you paralyze her do you want that on your conscience? You might not care at the moment but you will in ten years. 4. Probably the girl for starting it. But that doesn’t mean you can’t be the bigger person by just walking away. 5. If you absolutely have to defend yourself, you already made one mistake. How do you know the guy isn’t armed and might blow you away? Relax.

You are an OG bro. I say that with the greatest respect, not busting chops.

Shortly after Obama won in 2008, anyone who, for any reason, was critical of him got blasted by his legion of sycophants. At best, you would be accused of being racist or a bigot. But after a while, they would start to accuse you of having "Obama Derangement Syndrome" and declaring that Obama being President was somehow driving you insane, thus nothing you said could be taken at face value. Either way, as far as his sycophants were concerned, he was indeed Deity and anyone who said otherwise was the enemy. *To this day* you'll find people who will tell you to your face that his time in office was "scandal-free" even after you show them the astoundingly long list of scandals his administration actually produced. That's where the whole talk of "Derangement Syndrome" started.

As I've mentioned before, when I was in my teens and twenties, the local stake presidency made "All young men must serve missions and all young women must regard any young man who doesn't as ineligible for marriage" a mantra. Every fifth Sunday and Stake Priesthood saw that being driven home repeatedly, to the point that virtually an entire generation of young men either left the area or left the church because of how fire & brimstone the leadership was about it. I was one of the few who stayed, and I basically spent a solid decade in misery. My maternal grandmother had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's my senior year of high school, and if I had left it would have been a hardship on my parents because they needed my help taking care of her. I was repeatedly told time and time again that I was lesser for not having gone on a mission and that there was no excuse to justify my actions. Even my own parents sometimes contributed to this, as since I was the only one of my siblings still at home I was all too often the one who bore the brunt of their anger and frustration with having to care for her and the aftermath thereof. They also couldn't understand why I was feeling the way I was feeling until one stake speaker finally went too far and talked about how "worthless" anyone who didn't serve was, at which point they finally realized what I'd been dealing with. Thing is... I graduated in 2002. I got online in 2000, and at the time members of the church who were online were few and far between. The church website was barely functional on a good day, and so most of us had to find the handful of apologetics websites & learn from there in order to combat the horde of cyber-bullies and Christian counter-cult types who would swarm us every day. I spent the 2000s and first part of the 2010s doing online apologetics work for the church simply by virtue of being on the internet, and so made *that* my mission field. Despite being a nobody from nowhere, by the time things were said and done I had *ministers* in a panic because I knew how to respond to the then-current lists of anti-Mormon material that were in circulation and could destroy their arguments thusly. I actually broke several people psychologically because they couldn't understand how I was actually holding my own against their precious canned arguments, let alone how I was successfully challenging various points of their own beliefs just by turning their own arguments back on them. Everything people enjoy now about being a member of the church online came about because people like myself fought long and hard for it. I'd say, then, that I did far more work for the church than I would have if I'd have worn that name tag. That brings us to your situation. Find what you're good at, find something only *you* can do, and do it. Make *that* your mission. If anyone tries to dog you about it, invite them to read the "lift where you stand" Conference talk from a few years ago.

Not in the D&C but communicated to Smith by at least nine different people; including three future apostles and two future general RS presidents. https://ensignpeakfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Encouraging-Joseph-Smith-to-Practice-Plural-Marriage-The-Accounts-of-the-Angel-with-a-Drawn-Sword.pdf

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

TDS absolutely exists, and I have experienced such behavior from numerous personal acquaintances and endless people online. It seems to be largely a function of where the individuals get their news. All news is biased, but news with a political agenda can be some of the most extremely biased. And since Trump began his run in 2015, the "mainstream news" and just about all of the left-of-center news ramped up the divisiveness, the character smearing, the fear-mongering. After J6, the shrieking and demonizing grew exponentially worse. It became "mainstream" to push the narrative that Trump is more than just a narcissistic evil rich person, but actually a fascist as bad as hitler. Sources: MSNBC comparing the Trump rally at Madison Square Garden to a 1939 pro-nazi rally. https://www.msnbc.com/jonathan-capehart/watch/trump-s-msg-rally-draws-comparisons-to-1939-pro-nazi-rally-222807621632 Tim Walz did it too: "Donald Trump's got this big rally going at Madison Square Garden," Walz said, speaking to voters in Nevada. "There's a direct parallel to a big rally that happened in the mid 1930s at Madison Square Garden. And don't think that he doesn't know for one second exactly what they're doing there." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-madison-square-garden-rally-dnc-projections/ Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez accused Trump of being a fascist, trying to unite racism, bigotry, nationalism with industry and the keys of government, in order to stamp out democracy: https://www.foxnews.com/video/6363844350112 The list went on and on. Michele Obama. Hillary Clinton. Nancy Pelosi. All of them accusing Trump of being a fascist, comparing him to Hitler. Former President Obama last year asked "How did we get so divided?" The obvious answer is at least in part, "voices on the left side of the political fence keep feeding it through fear mongering and borderline inciting". It was so bad in one LDS group populated by mostly lefties, I opened a thread called "Please stop comparing Trump to Hitler". In it I listed those sources and made this plea: It was fairly scary to see one LDS person continue the narrative. Continuing the comparisons, extreme rhetoric about how the world must never allow another hitler, even defending the attempted assassination attempts by equating them with other attempts on world leaders.

That is as I recall as well. Yes, he was a witness to seeing the plates. But I had never heard that he was a scribe to the translation, nor eyewitness to the process. I'd have similar comments about his account. One or the other of us is mixing something up. I'm not sure what "Option 3" you're referring to. The #3 that I posted seems to be the reverse of... could you please clarify? The D&C Sections which state that they came through the U&T comes from Church History, Vol 1. By Joseph's own hand. Thusly: He also explicitly states that several other sections came by way of the U&T introducing those sections in similar manner. History of the Church. Written in the first person by Joseph Smith. I doubt he was being evasive, simplistic, and glib in this official history. Wouldn't this give more credibility to what I've been saying all along? Yes, but I'd think that if he had the U&T, and he did (as I pointed out) use them for revelatory purposes on more than one occasion, then it seems that there was no reason "not" to use them. Couple that with the fact you cited above that "he never explicitly referred to the seer stone again." It seems like, *maybe*, he was exclusively referring to them because that's what he exclusively used? Not today. It just doesn't feel right. This is a rather atheistic argument for miracles. "If your only explanation for creation is that God did it, then why didn't he make the universe where fish flew in outer space?..." I'm hoping you're familiar with that argumentation. My point was that there is an order to things that God does. And if He specifically prepared the interpreters AND preserved them for over 1200 years, then it seems an awful waste if the seer stone (which Joseph already had) was perfectly adequate. My point is that we know by ample descriptions about what the U&T can do (possibly more that was not described). But we don't have any scriptural knowledge of what seer stones are like. Why are we so quick to accept the stories about them without proper basis? I'm afraid I'll have to repeat myself. But I'll try to organize it better. Vocabulary. Joseph wasn't aware of the term U&T until later. So, he used what vocabulary he had to best describe it at the time. Demonstration. One of the theories among the U&T crowd is the demonstration narrative. Since he couldn't show anyone the U&T, he simply grabbed a stone and threw it into the hat he used. This means that the hat was used with the U&T. Bradley mentioned the beaver skin/badger skin parallel when using the U&T. Let me know if you haven't read that part yet. ************************** I was just trying to look up dates for the translation and printing. Based on my memory of having read the HC about 30 years ago, I remembered the date the manuscript was taken to the printer on June 10th or 11th. But I was just trying to verify that. And it appears that the closest thing I have is that HC says in June, "our translation drawing to a close, we went to Palmyra, Wayne county, New York, secured the copyright, and agreed with Mr Egbert... to print five thousand copies..." No specific date. My theory was partially based on the schedule. If that figure of the 10th or 11th is true, consider the schedule: IIRC, they moved to the Whitmer home in June (I suppose the 1st at the earliest). Multiple sections of the D&C were given and recorded. They also had several visions including the 3 witnesses. The 8 witnesses also had to do their thing. They had to put together the testimonies for them to sign their names. They put together a whole bunch of filler pages. They wouldn't have had much time for a dozen people acting as scribe to have seen how the translation process was done. That's what I was getting at with all the scribes. I don't think that happened. I think their scribal work was about converting the original manuscript into the printer's manuscript and putting together all the other documents. So, few, if any of the other parties actually participated in the translation itself. They only participated in the editorial work. That's what I get when I read the history.

I need to correct myself: Lucy felt them under a silk handkerchief the night Joseph got the plates, as related in her account as dictated to the Corays, the manuscript of which is on the JSP website. Going back to the other 2 accounts: remember JS Sr was eventually one of the 8 witnesses. Joseph Sr’s account comes via a late recollection from one Fayette Lapham, who in 1870 published a (highly skeptical) account of his interview with Joseph Sr from 1830, which is available online via Wikisource. William’s account comes from a book he published in 1831 called “On Mormonism” which is available online via archive.org. Apologies for the lengthy response time; I had missed this earlier. I’m posting on my phone and can’t do a well-cited comprehensive response now, but a couple of cursory responses: —On narrative of U&T vs SS: I don’t think Option 3 needs to unnecessarily downplay the role of the U&T/Nephite Interpreters. The fact is, we just don’t know exactly what the balance was; and the more we entrench into the position that one or the other was not used in the process, the more likely we are to be disproven at some point. —Beware of D&C sections headings as a source for describing the medium by which those headings were received. D&C 6 was originally published in the Book of Commandments as “Chapter V”—you can see it on the JSP website, and that header says nothing about how it was received. To suss all that out you have to go back to whoever wrote the headings—I think they mostly hark back to the “History of the Church”, which was written by JS well after 1833 (when he apparently started using the term “U&T” exclusively and, AFAIK, never explicitly referred to the seer stone again) and which was largely written as dictated to scribes. We know that for at least part of 1829 JS had the Nephite interpreters *and* the seer stone(s). —I’d be interested to hear your theory on the interpreters and how they were used; though I certainly understand your reticence here. —I think it’s important to differentiate Joseph’s seer stone (which was of God) from Sally Chase’s stone/glass (about which we know no such thing). If we hypothesize that seer stones work according to some sort of unknown-yet-natural phenomena, then asking why God let Sally’s stone work “a little, but not all the way” is like asking why God let my beater car go 300,000 miles, but not 300,050 miles, before conking out. At some point the discussion is less about natural/mechanical cause-and-effect; and more about why God does what He does and what He’s trying to teach us through the layers of protection He does or doesn’t offer. (For example, in the case of the Sally-inspired raid on the empty box, it reminds Joseph that there are unseen-but-real supernatural powers trying to take the plates from Joseph and that he needs to be utterly vigilant). Re the roadblocks you cite: —On seer stones/U&T showing “what is not”—again, you’re talking about Sally Chase’s stone here; and I think we get into trouble if we look at (divinely approved) seer stones as a mechanical object that is bound by law to always work in the same way and under a consistent set of conditions/ restrictions. (And even Sally’s stone was apparently able to accurately show what had previously been; just not—in that instant—what was the current situation.) —As to why JS would transition from the U&T to a “lesser” instrument: One might as well ask why he would quit using any physical revelatory medium at all (which, odor far as we know, he eventually did). It may well be that he didn’t initially realize that the seer stone could *also* function as an interpreter. There’s certainly a lot of unclarity here; but I think people who deny that the seer stone was ever used in translating need to explain why Whitmer, Harris, and Emma (who were actually there when it was happening) claimed to have seen it being used. If it was never used, then who was it who originated these rumors so powerful that they managed to taint the memories of 3/4 of the firsthand witnesses to the process; and what was the originator’s agenda? And, one thing that just occurred to me (as I perused this article)—what do we do with the witnesses who don’t necessarily specify which instrument was used, but are quite certain that they saw a hat being used in the process? Does that change the analysis? Should it?

Welcome to the forum Michael. I am interested in your post and would like to engage in conversation. As I have considered things, it seems that there is much to take into account. I am somewhat of the opinion that there are several events, processes or scriptural ear marks. Often these things are spoken of as though they are expressions of a single event (very possible in my mind). Or they could also be separate events – though related – maybe even years, decades or more apart. I will make a list of what I believe these events are: One: The 7th Seal Two: The Last Days Three: The Gathering of Israel Four: The Restoration of all things Five: The Destruction of the Wicked Six: The Divine protection of the Righteous (pillar of fire by night and smoke by day – being caught up) Seven: Time of Turbulence. Eight: Ringing in of the Millennium Nine: Coming of Christ to reign as king Ten: Establishment of Zion (Jackson County Missouri) Eleven: The Rise of the Anti-Christ. Twelve: The battle or war of Armageddon. Thirteen: Two Witnesses protecting Jerusalem – killed and lying in the streets of Jerusalem – then being raised up I have been of the mind that the opening of the 7 seal and the ushering in of the Millennium are the same thing. Could you elaborate more detail concerning your opinion of this matter. I am open to discussion with you are anyone else that would like to join in on the discussion. The Traveler

Again, we have to be careful of these descriptions. Were they secondhand? Or did certain other individuals (other than Joseph or Oliver) see them firsthand? If so, what about the injunction to not allow any to see them?

I had understood that Joseph was not allowed to show the U&T to anyone except Oliver. Where did William and Joseph Sr get this information? I'm not aware of any lifting of the restriction. One principle that Bradley repeats is that when the further detached witnesses (2nd hand, 3rd hand...) begin to make claims that wander from 1st hand accounts, that is usually a sign of rumors rather than true testimony. It seems that the further we get from Oliver and Joseph, the more we hear about the stone rather than the intpereters.

In the Doctrine and Covenants 77:13, Joseph asks the Lord when the things are to be accomplished written in the 9th chapter of Revelation? He is answered that they are to be accomplished after the opening of the seventh seal before the coming of Christ. My personal belief is that we are living in the beginning of the millennium at this time, and we can expect a great many cataclysmic events to take place soon. According to Revelations 8 and 9 we have a lot to look forward to before the Lord comes. His coming will begin the millennium of peace but not the actual beginning of the seventh thousand year period.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/revelations-in-context/oliver-cowderys-gift?lang=eng The entire “Revelations in Context” series is excellent.

If that talk was 20 years ago, I'm way, way too old! Cast Not Away Therefore Your Confidence And thank you! He does indeed ask the exact question I'm asking (and presumably answer it - I stopped there to come write my thanks. Going back to read now. PS: apparently I'm way, way too old.) reading... Elder Holland is hilarious! If you (generic) want all of Elder Holland's answer to my question, you'll need to go read the article, it's multiple paragraphs long. And since it's Elder Holland, it's worth the read. You're the best, @Just_A_Guy!

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

There's a PDF here: https://emp.byui.edu/ANDERSONKC/halesp.pdf

If Trump is the anti-Christ, then all of us worrying about the power of the adversary should relax. He’s way too silly to be the anti Christ. Nothing will convince you otherwise if you are really determined to believe this, but take my word on this-the real anti christ will be far more powerful and intimidating than Donald Trump. No, I’m not a fan of his either. But I’m not delusional.

Irony. On these forums I joke that I am considered a Liberal (which I think I am). In regards to many of the veiws expressed here at times, I suppose I have differing views than others). Here's where the irony comes in. I am not considered a "Lefty", not even a "Liberal" by anyone outside of these forums. In fact, most would consider me somewhat conservative (some would label me very conservative for some opinions I hold). I consider myself an independent (that probably leans conservative). With that said... I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I worship the Lord Jesus Christ as my Savior, and our Father in Heaven who is our God. This forum in the past few months seems to have transitioned from being a Forum for Latter-day Saints to one that worships Trump. That means I have not been participating as often or as much. I do NOT worship Trump, and forums where they worship him are not that attractive to me. I'd say one "derangement" is being so fervent about an individual that you replace your own religion with faith in them and what they are doing. Even worse, that you put your belief in what an individual is doing above those principles and teachings that the gospel has. It is no secret that I've said Trump is either The Anti-Christ or An Anti-Christ. If one feels that is derangement, so be it, but at the end of the day, there is only One God I worship and his gospel is the one that I follow. I feel the overly abundant worship (and praise, almost like they feel Trump is not human and infallible) people heap on Trump here is actually a turn off for many who are followers of our Lord. This forum should appeal to those who follow the gospel, not just those Americans (and a few others) who believe in Trump and despise all those who do not.

I've seen some anti-Musk sycophants make the claim that there's a glitch in the Social Security systems that result in people whose information was entered incorrectly being defaulted in age back to a specific period of time. If true, however, it's still a very alarming situation that still merits the Social Security Administration being audited in order to discover why a known glitch of this nature has been allowed to continue for so long and how many people have been affected by it.