Leaderboard

Don’t we live in a constitutional republic?

Sure, and democracy is how we select the people who run our constitutional republic, per the Constitution. So we also live in a democracy.

I don't doubt there are a lot of non-Muslims there. But I'd point out that in a population of 90 million, a non-Muslim population of 1 Million people (which is a lot of people) is just over 1% of the population. And chances are that they are gathered together to strengthen each other, so it seemed to them that there were more. I'd also point out that you cited a "large variety of other nationalities/ethnicities". I never addressed that. I only pointed out the religious demographic, not nationalities/ethnicities. The Middle Eastern people are of many ethnicities and come from many nations. They don't all look like the stereotypical Arab. And they intermarry just fine. But they are very strict about religious enforcement. As I posted earlier, even other Muslim nations don't like Iran and its allies. They know those countries are ruled by extremists. Even if the majority of the citizenry would be more moderate, the citizens don't really have a choice.

Iran and Saudi Arabia have had a far more hostile cold war between them than the US and the USSR did in the late 20th century (though earlier in the century it probably was hotter between the US and the USSR). They absolutely hate each other. Some of it is over religious disagreements. It has benefited the US greatly (Saudi Arabia is one of the US's oldest allies, and lean greatly on the US for support, much of it due to wanting and needing weapons and defense in regards to this cold war).

I used to think that everyone was living with sadness and anxiety. After all, Thoreau said it best when he said “Most men lead lives of quiet desperation.” I was wrong. While bad things happen to everyone, many people lead happy, fulfilled lives. It might be a bitter pill for some to accept-but life isn’t full of despair and dread for a lot of us.

This is where both sides gets this wrong. 1. Democracy is an umbrella term which indicates that the masses have some say in how the government goes about passing and enforcing laws. This includes both the election of representatives as well as direct consent to new laws (e.g.: propositions). 2. Another definition of democracy (when the context is specifically describing the difference between republics and democracies) is that a "direct" democracy is where the population votes on any measure that effects the entire population. EVERY SINGLE TIME. So, I disagree with Republicans who make a big deal and say that "We don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic." I also disagree with Democrats who say that whenever an elected official does something we disagree with, we can take them out of office immediately "because we live in a democracy." While there are some jurisdictions that allow for an immediate recall, there are conditions that restrict it somewhat. And with the President, the Constitution already addresses that.

Yes, it has... during this administration. And one of the reasons why is that we're cutting away at socialism. Yes, that is a public good. So, not necessarily socialism. And there are some privately run fire departments that do a better job by focusing on prevention rather than remedy. This is the quintessential example of a public good right behind military and police. So, again, not really socialism. And yet again, private versions do a better job. Lol. Not the best argument to get a conservative to consider socialism as a good thing. Are you joking? You're calling the post office a good example of a socialist program? Once upon a time it was necessary because there was no practical alternative. But now??? I believe we've had this discussion already. Disagree. If it were run as a watchdog (basically being the "police" of how food is made) maybe. But it has gone FAARRR beyond that. Ever heard of the 2001 Roadless Rule? They recently rescinded it because the greenies that imposed it didn't realize that we need roads in forests to provide services such as controlled burning, debris removal, manage wildlife, etc. And it causes the ecosystem to die. And then there is the recent chicken epidemic. I think that was the USDA wasn't it? I could be mistaken. It may be another govt. department. I don't think any educated capitalist would argue that private enterprise is immune to corruption. But the self-correcting mechanisms either keep it down to a minimum, OR cause the enterprise to fail. And when it fails, there are alternatives that come to pick up the pieces and offer new jobs to those ground-level workers who are out of work. Government has no such mechanisms or alternatives. While I'm sure you think DOGE was an evil group, it really did get rid of a LOT of corruption (incl. waste fraud and abuse) in government. It's not really clear what you're arguing here. From what I gather, people who are gainfully employed are able to get money from the government that is usually reserved for people who can't work or can't find work. But I get the feeling you're saying something else?? What I get out of the comment is that the government offers a very public and very easy way to fleece our tax dollars. Again, I'm not sure that this is a winning argument for you. You're talking about how government spends money. By definition this exchange is a socialist endeavor. Every venture in new developments/technologies requires trial and error. That's in any venture into the NEW and ORIGINAL. The fact that his end product is so much better that he can perform better at a lower cost should say that this is a GOOD thing. But for some reason you think this is a failure of capitalism?

The problem in the United States is not so much Capitalism, but Corporatism and Monopolism rather than Capitalism. Unfortunately, in many instances, Capitalism evolves into Corporatism and Monopolism as the "Survival of the Fittest" edges away the smaller companies, companies merge and giant corporations that have far more power than any other business emerge. When we have companies that engulf such a large amount of sales such as Amazon and Walmart in comparison to other companies, such as Mom and Pop shops, the ability those corporations have to affect government and the economy far outscales anything that normal Capitalism can compete with. In order to have a real capitalistic society, social controls over how large corporations, companies, and co-ops can get must be written and legally enforced. The problem we have had is that these laws have been slowly eroded over the past half century, where as at the same time a great reluctance to enforce anti-monopoly laws have crippled our government in regards to stopping such corporatism from taking place. Part of this is that we see benefits of having large companies control large swathes of our economy in relation to others (an China took note and has attempted a very similar thing, which we can see it's impact on us today). An example... Microsoft, though we took a soft punch at it over two decades ago, never really got broken as a Monopoly. As a result, though other systems are utlized, on the desktop environment, over 75% of the computers worldwide (this does not include phones or tablets, just the desktop and PC environments which we use in such places as schools, offices, etc) still dominate the OS. Thus, ideas such as forced updates, forced creation of accounts, and other things just to unlock our computers to use for the first time are the norm, because all those things are on Windows. Linux, Unix, and other OS's, despite having better ways to do things in these areas are largely not utilized due to Windows dominance. In essence, the competition is not ideal. There is no real capitalism in this environment. Some would say it is a good thing, as we have more universal usage and commonality. It has allowed the United States to control the computer environment (and now along with Apple, even greater control with the phones and tablets) of the world. However, in regards to capitalism, Capitalism is dead in this arena, and has been for decades. If it were alive and well, the US may not have the control it does over these environments throughout the world. If we want Capitalism, than we have to enable capitalism to exist, rather than allowing companies to have basic monopolies in certain areas. Many do not see the advantages of it in relation to where we stand today in regards to the Corporatism that has engulfed this nation. Much of the problems people try to point out regarding Capitalism in the United States is not so much a result of Capitalism itself, but Corporatism and Monopolism in regards to their impact on our Government and Economy.

Good thing we live in a democracy, then. If you look at the current political makeup of our federal government, I'd say democracy is working out pretty well for your side of the fence. Fire departments Public roads Public schools USPS USDA And I would counter that private enterprise is no more immune to corruption and waste than government programs. In fact, I'd argue that it's worse. Each year, over $40 BILLION goes to SNAP benefits for people working full-time jobs, including employees at companies like Amazon and Walmart. Amazon's starting pay is $15/hr, btw. It really highlights how little workers were asking for with that number. Elon Musk is a beneficiary of $30B+ in government contracts. Our investment has gotten us spaceships that blow up, robotaxis that crash, Russia using Starlink in their war against Ukraine, and a bunch of dead animals at Neuralink. There's a reason why NASA was able to put multiple men on the moon in the 60s and 70s: direct government oversight. You know, the thing that the Trump administration (with Elon's help) spent its first few months dismantling. If none of that stinks to you, then respectfully, I don't care about your opinions regarding government waste.

Hmm, I wasn't aware of this. Maybe this is a UKism, but my wife (and alot of my ward) are of the belief that prior to the ushering in of the Millennium, Utah will be one of the most wicked places on earth. I'm not sure of the veracity of this belief. Supposedly, there were some prophetic statements from Joseph Smith indicating the church would ultimately become home to apostasy, and I hardly think modern saints are immune from the pattern of secret combinations destroying the church found in the book of Mormon.

Jazz fans-you got one of our guys. Good luck!

Missed this. Agree 10,000% again.

Yup, all true. Utah is famous for MLM schemes, anti depressant use and affinity fraud. It’s very sad.

Even then, the Church is filled with wicked people. I think some people have deluded themselves into thinking Mormon = good. Some of the most difficult and hypocritical people I know of are members of the church. The handbook even has a section on "Affinity Fraud" because some foolish saints think "Ah yes, Mormon = Good. I will give you large sums of money." Not realising they've been scammed. Such a section wouldn't exist if it wasn't a real issue. Generally the world would be a better place if everybody followed the gospel. But fantasising about such, feel alot more like Satan's plan.

Yup.

None of those initiatives are incompatible with capitalism. It's hard to say if they're good ideas or not because they've never been tried, but at least he's bringing something to the table other than corruption and scandal. Wealth disparity has steadily gotten worse over the last 40 years because, as it turns out, wealth doesn't trickle down. Tipping the scales in the other direction won't be the end of capitalism. A bunch of rich folks will get mad, but at the end of the day they'll still be rich.

I'm the slow one in this thread. I don't think I understand the question. I went to the link and it just appeared to be a post about holdings and then talking about the church's holdings. I didn't find a quiz. I'm not even sure why it matters in their context. I don't get it. I suppose that means my social media literacy score is...extremely low??

Meanwhile, Zohran Mamdani just won the New York primary seat away from Cuomo. Dude's policies include initiatives like raising the minimum wage to $30 an hour, creating city-owned grocery stores, bringing back rent control, and paying for it all with increased taxes on wealthy residents and corporations. Wanna bet eighty qwubbrillion dollars that if he wins and implements all that jargle, every single one of them will end up epic massive failures?

Carb said both of those things. I pointed out that my friend who left said there are a lot of non-Muslims and a pretty large variety of other nationalities / ethnicities, but I concede, perhaps that was only the case when my friend was there, and the other non-Muslims mostly left, just like my friend.

Zil says pretty much everyone in Iran is Muslim and there's hardly any non-Muslims. Carb says most of the people who left Iran that he knows, are pretty much all non-Muslims. Gee. I wonder if the two experiences might be related in some way.

Sure. The world is a complicated place, and there are people who are struggling. Agree. That’s where we agree-sort of. The world would be a better place if we followed the gospel, but even people who follow those rules religiously (pun intended) will still have problems like depression, loved ones dying, etc. But, and like I said, I know it’s a bitter pill, there are people out there (both religious and not) who are actually happy.

I'm taking a much wider view than you seem to be doing. A large portion of the world lives in what we in the US would consider abject poverty. Having served a mission in a third world country, and having visited poorer countries I have seen how a simple thing like church membership and obedience to the gospel can help people live better lives. This goes for what we think of as first world countries as well. Many problems could be avoided in our own country by obedience to gospel principles. Think homelessness, drug addiction, alcoholism, abuse of all types, crime, etc. etc. These are problems for millions of people right here in the US. They are not doing "fine". Even in our own congregations there are a lot of problems among so-called active members. And since only around 40% of us are active, consider the levels of "not fineness" that must exist in the less active. Of course, not everyone experiences cataclysmic problems, but the Church gives one a good head start to avoid them.

Quite possibly. I was just prefacing my thoughts on potential modern applications by pointing out that Isaiah’s initial hearers were most likely interpreting him as prophesying about the result of a ruinous war (see Isaiah 3:25-26) and, more generally, the humiliation through war and disease of the formerly-prideful women of the southern kingdom of Judah.

I hear you loud and clear. Most of us on the left are very clear on the fact that capitalism cannot be abolished except through tyranny, and 99% of us aren't willing to cross that line. We also believe that there are aspects of socialism that are fully compatible with a core capitalist system. As I said, many of our capitalist allies are far more socialist than we are. People like me are just trying to reform the system we have, not build a new one from scratch. We reject the notion that we "have to" do xyz because it's always been so. The "least bad" option still has room to improve without disrupting its fundamental infrastructure.

So your argument against an entire (and predominantly peaceful) religion is that the Ottoman Empire was pro-slavery in *checks notes* 1788? I wonder who else was pro-slavery back then.... The fact that our slaves were African tribesman instead of white westerners doesn't make our position any more morally right than the Ottomans. Try again.

In any society someone has to decide what is "right" and what is "wrong," whether it be economically, socially, whatever. But somebody has to decide it. I personally would rather it be me (us the people) rather than some ruling class. If we fail it's on us and we have no one to blame but ourselves. The influence of the US in the world is obviously both good and bad. But if it's have both or have neither then I would much rather be a citizen of most any nation with the US in the world than not. Lastly, it's really hard to know what people really think about us. We know what they think based on what they are told about the US but that's not always accurate. And the less freedom a people enjoy the more likely their perceptions are skewed.

This verse is a transition verse between the judgements falling on unrighteous Israel and the promises of righteous Israel (after it is cleansed). So it's probably speaking of a time imminent to the second coming or immediately following it. And while there may be a literal fulfillment of this verse I'm thinking the spiritual fulfillment may be related to the ten virgins and apply to both men in women in relation to The Bridegroom.

Given that Isaiah is so prone to dual prophesies, I think the primary meaning is less about future male/female relationships and more of a simple (and maybe hyperbolic) illustration of the destruction that will have been wrought on (then-) future Israel through wars, to the point that there just aren’t many men left. But if one reads the verse loosely and tries to apply it to our own culture in the last days, what we might fundamentally see is women offering men the benefits of a traditional marriage (in a word: sex) while not demanding that men reciprocate with the traditional responsibilities of marriage (material support/commitment). And I think lots of modern American/ Western women do precisely that, to avoid the “stigma” of virginity/undesirability or in pursuit of some will o’ the wisp emotional connection or out of a “maybe he’ll like me if I just change enough” dynamic or out of a desperate need not to be alone as their culture accuses them of “passing their prime”. There may not be a stigma against being unmarried; but I get the impression that (outside the Mormon corridor, at least) there’s very much a stigma against being chaste.

Not every Muslem hates us. Not everybody in Iran is following the hard lines of Ayatollah. Having spent time with those of Islamic belief, I realize that, especially we LDS, have much in which we can find common ground, but we need to know how to address it. The Book of Mormon encourages us that teaching the principles of the gospel are more powerful than the sword. I submit that seeking for worldly wealth is counter to the gospel of Christ. The Traveler

That's what they say... And men have bought it (sorta). But as I observe women (feminists especially) throughout society, they claim one way, yet behave another.

Ok. So they think we're satan because of compound interest. Other things to understand about them: - In a world where you only need 20% enriched uranium to run a nuclear energy industry, they have stockpiles of 60% enriched uranium. - Enriching to 20% is relatively easy, enriching to 60% is relatively hard, and then getting from 60 to 90 is pretty quick and easy. 90% is weapons grade. - Iran has a space program full of dual-use technology easily used for ICBMs. - The govt of Iran has overflowed with rhetoric for a long time about destroying Israel and the US with nuclear fire. - The govt of Iran has a long history of killing Americans and Israelis. And supporting terrorist proxies that try to kill Americans and Israelis. Anything else we need to understand about the danger from our understood enemy that we're understanding? I'm reminded of the parts of the Book of Mormon that had the good guy Nephites use spycraft and deception in order to destroy their enemy in combat. I mean, I yearn for the day when Christ will return and become the government, and we won't have to worry about neighbors that want to kill all of us and are actively engaging in doing so, as well as building better ways to do so. But until then, I gotta live in the world I live in.

As of May 17, 2025, Iran had a stockpile of 408.6 kg of uranium enriched to 60% purity, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This was an increase of 133.8 kg from the previous IAEA report in February 2025, when the stockpile was approximately 274.8 kg. Regarding whether Iran “trucked it out,” there is evidence suggesting Iran moved its 60% enriched uranium stockpile to a secret location before U.S. and Israeli strikes on its nuclear facilities in June 2025. Satellite imagery from Maxar Technologies showed 16 cargo trucks near the Fordow facility’s entrance two days before the U.S. strikes on June 13, 2025, indicating a possible “frantic effort” to relocate materials, potentially including the enriched uranium. The IAEA’s Rafael Grossi noted that the stockpile was last verified by UN inspectors about a week before Israel’s attacks began, and its current whereabouts are unverified due to restricted access. Iran claimed it smuggled most of its highly enriched uranium to a secret location before the strikes. However, some analysts, like Ronen Solomon, suggest that even if moved, the uranium’s utility is limited without functional centrifuges, which were heavily damaged in the strikes. The exact location of the stockpile remains uncertain, and the IAEA has called for inspections to account for it. With functional centrifuges (e.g., 1,000 IR-6 centrifuges), Iran could enrich its 408.6 kg of 60% uranium to 90% in 1-2 months to produce enough for one or two weapons (25-50 kg total). Without sufficient centrifuges, the process could take much longer or be infeasible until infrastructure is restored. There was a good reason that Israel and Trump acted.

Reports now (take them for what they are worth) say: Iran's stockpile of uranium was enriched to 60%. Not enough to do a full-blown bomb. But obviously beyond "energy-producing" levels. Iran was apparently moving the uranium via trucks, prior to the bombing. The centrifuges were destroyed or made unuseable. While some may be reparable, it is still a significant cost to Iran. However, we are aware that they had others at other facilities. We don't know where. Saudi Arabia is clear that they consider Iran a bad actor. Apparently, there is no love lost between them.

Golden Dome is all about that particular threat. I'm a little worried about an EMP attack, but I'm more worried about shipping containers of drones heading to random cities and popping off all at once.

In terms of "escape"........ it is an intentionally dramatic term and frankly I think gives the wrong impression. You are not trapped in any physical sense in the Church. If you want to leave on a simple practical level you can just stop going, send 1 letter to the Bishop asking them to not send anyone around (or remove your name if you genuinely want to) and perhaps a follow up and it is done. On that practical level saying you escaped feels...... well we probably wanted you to stay and some people will have tried to persuade you but you were not truly trapped. On a cultural level, it can be very hard for a person to completely overhaul or change their life. I have no plan to leave the Church (I am persuaded it is true for one thing) but even on a basic level I would feel..... kind of adrift on a Sunday without church to go to. I would lose some of my social interactions. I would lose a fairly hefty chunk of my identity. Leaving all of that behind may not be physically difficult but emotionally you bet it can be. And if you have close friends or family who are part of the Church then there can be a lot of pressure to stay and conform (whether intended or not) and telling them you no longer believe is going to be hard. I think escape is the wrong term, but it will be true that it can be a tough thing to do. And on a personal note, I would say 2 things. First, if you have tried and genuinely do not believe it is true, or genuinely believe the Church is fundamentally wrong, then I think you probably should leave. Don't pretend as that will just do you harm. And if you want to explain to people why you disbelieve then of course that is your right. I only genuinely dislike the critics who are dishonest about the Church, such as clipping 2 seconds from a 20 minute talk to make a leader look bad (as one example, I saw a critic post a quote from Elder Scott that tried to imply he blamed people for being abused...... even the worst faith reading of the whole talk shows that is not true as the talk is replete with comments about how the abused has done nothing wrong and should not feel guilt etc). So long as you are honest we can have a productive conversation (I get as frustrated with Evangelical types who try to tell me what I believe, such as someone saying we earn our way into Heaven, as that is again often bad faith). As a sub item to the above, don't accuse me of being brainwashed or some nonsense. I know why I believe what I do, you don't. But for the second thing, I dislike the term "cult" or the modern variant "high-demand religion". Both are just code terms for saying "religion I do not like, but also it's bad". It is not a useful term at all. We are a religion like many others. People who use the term cult to describe us usually do so in bad faith. The term cult is just a pejorative without any meaningful content except as a cudgel to say "boooooo" at a religion.

2025 NCAA CHAMPIONS what a comeback!

...Except for No Kings SLC, where an innocent bystander was shot and killed by a rather incompetent "security guard" the organizers had hired, the result of the person aiming at a third party who had drawn a weapon and missing.