Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 06/11/19 in all areas

  1. I find little openly objectionable about this article, and I agree with Tanner's conclusion that obedience to God trumps all. But the way he presents the issue contains "tells" that suggest he's in the anti-gun camp and that he thinks those in the pro-gun camp are simply wrong. Why is this discouraging? Why do I even care? Because lip service is not enough for societal discourse, including in Church society. Arguments for or against a position, if presented, should be reasonably representative of those groups who hold them. In this, Tanner fails when he cites the people of Ammon (Anti-Nephi-Lehies) as an example of how it's righteous to completely disarm. Let's be clear. By their own admission, and uncontradicted by anyone else, the people of Ammon were filthy murderers. They had literally had the blood of innocent Nephites on their hands. Killing Nephites was sport to them. These people were lost to such a degree that surely their redemption must stand as one of the greatest miracles in all of scripture. Why did they abandon their weapons of war? Because they were desperate to do anything—ANYTHING—to rid their garments of the blood they had spilt. They were perfectly willing to suffer death at the hands of their enemies (brothers) than ever to kill anyone else, ever, for any reason. It's worth noting that they almost transgressed this covenant, but not because they personally were threatened. They were worried about the Nephites who were dying to protect them as they refused to lift a finger. And so, of course, we get the equally miraculous history of their sons, the so-called Stripling Warriors. Is the example of the people of Ammon burying their weapons of war and utterly refusing to lift a finger in defense of themselves or anyone else worthy to emulate? Sure, if you're a depraved murderer seeking expiation of your many murders. Otherwise, not so much. This paragraph in particular irked me: Guns are not implements of righteous enforcement for all people, however. For these people forgiving enemies and turning backs to smiters are more than platitudes, they are principles for living the peaceable life of a disciple of Christ. The people of Ammon are commonly cited as perfect examples of forsaking weapons of war. The clear, unavoidable implication is that pro-gunners take the teachings to forgive enemies and turn your back to smiters as mere "platitudes". This is so false and unfair as to be criminal really, really frustrating. For that matter, I am convinced that a non-insignificant minority of the anti-gunners are simply cowards, looking to justify their cowardice by painting it as peacemaking. I am a pro-gunner in principle, and actually do own some rifles. I am ill-trained and would be at a great disadvantage if I had to use a rifle to defend myself or my family. I am not a "gun nut" or a "gun lover". But I understand perfectly well the Second Amendment argument: Possession of defensive weapons is a God-given right that any righteous government must defend. Sometimes that makes me a little uncomfortable; frankly, I don't trust my next-door neighbors quite that much. But "living with risk" has another name: "living". Is firearm possession a God-given right? The US Constitution says so, and until that amendment is repealed or modified, I don't see how the issue can proceed forward. It's easy enough, anti-gunners: Just get a majority in 38 states to agree with you, and modify the Constitution. Don't take the vomitous, dishonest, and nation-destroying path of Roe v Wade.
    7 points
  2. As to the topic of the thread, Vort's take is 80% of the mic drop on the subject. For the other 20%, I submit the following: We get to choose on what side we fall. The tent of Zion is big enough to hold both folks. The innocent sheep get to peacefully graze in the sun and snooze in the grass, and read their scriptures and have callings and worship God and go to the temple and all that. And the shepherds and sheepdogs get to stand watchful and prepared, ready to engage in deadly combat, doing all the same things as the sheep. And if the sheep get offended at the sheepdogs, or vice versa, that's their problem. It's on them to love their neighbor and be able to sit next to them at the temple without being all ticked off about their stand on guns. Engage in debate all you want. It's our duty to propose and support just leaders and just laws, and we'll end up arguing a lot with each other about what is best. But when it becomes an issue of "what stand must a righteous disciple of the Lord take", you get to choose for yourself, and when the other guy chooses something else, y'all do your best to love 'em.
    4 points
  3. MarginOfError

    Chastity

    This is the standard I fall back on to evaluate these questions. It ties decision to your level of sexual arousal. If you aren't overly aroused, don't sweat it. If you continue to get involved in these make outs specifically to get the arousal, then maybe you should dial it back. Keep in mind also that the nature of the relationship may play a role in the decision. I am much less concerned with adult boyfriend and girlfriend who are moving toward marriage engaging in some make out than I am with teenagers making out on the first date. While the law of chastity is clear (no sexual relations outside of marriage), there are dating-in-a-serious-relationship activities prior to marriage that are not necessarily sexual. It isn't always clear to me where the line is drawn for any two people.
    3 points
  4. “Guns, Lots of guns” Seen it. About a month ago this guy woke me up trying to get into my house at 2 AM. I woke up and flipped on the outside lights. It startled him for a few seconds and he ran off about 15’ then he just sauntered right back and pushed open a trash door and started going thru the garbage. There was Little Caesars Pizza crust jackpot that he was interested in. Anyways I stepped out onto the patio and told him that he better take his business elsewhere. He just looked at me for a few seconds then went back to the Pizza Pizza. I told him that I’d be right back. I am a law abiding California resident so I got my gun case keys and pulled out my S&W 22 handgun. Then I opened my separate ammo container and loaded 5 rounds. Despite vociferous objections from the wife, I stepped outside in my Gs and while he casually watched me, I took a single head shot from 30’ and dropped him. I called Fish & Game at 8 AM and they came out and picked up the carcass. When they first arrived they were ready to give me quite the lecture. But they noticed that I hadn’t touched the animal. It died right by the house where I shot it. And all the children in their PJs around the bear probably helped too. Anyway they were impressed with the .22 kill shot and said they would use the bear to teach a class and that the skin would be used for school children education. I felt no remorse. We have had problem bears in the neighborhood previously. Im not a big proponent of food supply as found in cans. But we have a garden and I know how to use my firearms.
    3 points
  5. Good reminder. Also good to pull part of my reply on that thread: "Not having a firearm because you rely on police officers and soldiers to defend your life is the highest degree of eliticism. It’s a lot higher than leaving the cleaning of your toilet to the maid service.” That pretty much sums up my thoughts on the 2nd Amendment.
    2 points
  6. The math is valid, but the math is rarely the challenge with Bayesian analyses. The place where you run into problems with Bayesian analyses are first, the selection of the prior distribution, and 2, the choice of the likelihood function. In this particular case, I don't really object to their choice of prior distribution. They've effectively assigned a Bernoulli distribution with p = 1/1,000,000,000. I'm a bit more skeptical of the likelihood function. The likelihood function gets applied to each "statement of evidence" and adjusts our belief about the prior distribution based on the observed evidence. In this case, the likelihood function operates on the general algorithm If the statement from Coe and the statement from the Book of Mormon are concordant, increase our belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon. If the statement from Coe and the statement from the Book of Mormon are discordant, decrease our belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Unfortunately, Dale and Dale chose a likelihood function that, when the two sources are discordant, it simply says, "each has equal probability of being true." That is, despite the prior probability that the Book of Mormon is non-historical, the likelihood function assumes that it is, at worst, equally historical as the best scholarly research when the scholarly research is discordant. I'm not sure that's the best way to penalize discrepancies, and may be overstating the conclusion. The other place where this analysis gets mirky is in the evaluation of concordant or discordant. One in particular that I found unconvincing was where they found concordance with Mayan writings talking about leaders being "seated" and the Book of Mormon using the term "seated" when changes of power occur. But that seems to speak more to the translation process than the culture. Furthermore, it's claiming concordance based on changes of power occurring, which is a generally unsurprising observation through history. It would have been more impressive if the likelihood function were weighted based on the temporal proximity of changes in power reported by scholarly work and the Book of Mormon. Likewise, they claim concordance (albeit weak concordance) simply because the Book of Mormon mentions volcanoes and earthquakes and so do the Mayans, but makes no attempt to match time frames. My takeaway...meh....interesting concept. But I am not very persuaded as to the objectivity or rigor in which the points of concordance are selected, and I do think the likelihood function is biased in favor of the Book of Mormon.
    2 points
  7. If the government tries to disarm the populace it's going to destroy the nation in ways that Row v Wade couldn't even imagine.
    2 points
  8. Those who know me immediately recognize the pinpoint accuracy of that still.
    1 point
  9. In some cases, shooting skill isn't relevant.
    1 point
  10. When the poop hits the fan and the new evil regime comes a knockin' at yer door, you want @anatess2 on your side!
    1 point
  11. omegaseamaster75

    Chastity

    The simple fact that you feel the need to ask tells me that something needs to change. Is french kissing normal? (i don't have a problem with it) but would you do it in front of your bishop or mother? Probably not, it should probably be reserved fro a more deep and meaningful relationship. While you claim to not have much feeling about it I can guarantee you that your BF does. If you don't plan on going further along than making out I say back it up a little bit slow things down. It is easy to get wrapped up in the physical aspect of a relationship without really getting to know an individual. you've been dating a year? time to make some decisions about your relationship. You don't mention your age so it is hard to advise.
    1 point
  12. NeuroTypical

    Boys Being Men

    Well, if we're going to have this topic, we gotta mention the 18 yr old member of the church who was shot while stopping a school shooter. https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/05/15/shot-twice-he-helped-subdue-school-shooter-while-calling-his-mother/?utm_term=.e8b89e0753bb
    1 point
  13. The Folk Prophet

    Chastity

    I think this is key. Not to put too fine a point on the matter @Bri55...but...licking each others tongues may not arouse those emotions in you...but I'd bet a donut it does in him. And I'd bet a dollar that it actually does in you too. Is it a "sin"? I don't think that's the standard we set for all behavior, particularly where the definition of what literal "sin" is gets pretty blurry pretty quickly. What standard should we have? Holiness. On a side note: Why are you together for a long time french kissing each other but haven't moved forward towards marriage? Get busy with it or move on to greener pastures!
    1 point
  14. Jane_Doe

    Chastity

    Hi @Bri55, welcome to the forums. I'm going to start my question my addressing the obvious, and then going into the nuanced. Obviously ok: basic kissing, hand holding. The type of stuff you'd feel completely fine doing with your grandma watching you. Obviously not ok: clothes coming off, inappropriate touching/kissing. More nuanced: things like prolonged passionate kissing. For this rather than giving a Law of Moses laundry list of do's-and-don't-does, I'd rather focus on the spirit of things: is what you are doing being done to provoke those feelings which should be reserved for a husband and wife? If you're doing A for the purposes of invoking those feelings or they do invoke those feelings, then I would back off.
    1 point
  15. I always cringe when someone swears and especially when they use the L-rd's name in vain. However, we live in a society where vulgar language is not just normal but considered somewhat "proper" and acceptable. A while back I thought to no longer watch any TV show where the L-rd's name was used improperly. Within a week the only thing I could watch were general conference recording - no scheduled programming with perhaps the exception of BYU TV. Perhaps I am hypersensitive with this issue - it is in part why on the internet I never spell out L-rd or G-d. My point is - that if we shut out or isolate those individuals that use the L-rd's name in vain then we may find ourselves in a situation where we do not talk to anybody - including many church members. I do not know the answer to this - but I will say one thing. There are certain words I will not tolerate in my home. And I do not care how otherwise wonderful someone or some movie is - it is not welcome in my home. Same with smoking (including weed). I am not so concerned if someone indulges - just not in my personal "safe" home space - ever. The Traveler
    1 point
  16. I remember I had a really bad day once and a guy on the bus was talking about something very sexually inappropriate and I got angry at him and told him to stop. He started yelling at me and i ended up using the Lord's name in vain under my breath when I told him to shut up. He then got even angrier and started acting like he was going to attack me because, "How dare you use the Lord's name in vain!!!" I eventually reached my stop and got off while telling him to stop being a hypocrite. Here he was speaking disgusting things, but when I got mad and swore, under my breath, he went off on me? No, if someone uses a curse we should try to be patient, unless they are actually threatening violence. That is my two cents.
    1 point
  17. Last month I changed out the garage fluorescent lights to LEDs with motion activated sensors. They are so much better! Anyway I walked into the garage 2 weeks ago, it was empty and quiet, but one of the kids had left the back door to the garage open and the lights were on. I knew something or someone had either just left or was still in there. So I just stood there and started talking. Couple seconds later a good sized skunk popped out from behind the trash can. I gave him a wide berth and had a good talk with the kids about open doors and leaving out the d@mned cat food. My condolences. I can’t even imagine participating in a ‘fresh’ spray.
    1 point
  18. I agree with everything @Mores and @estradling75 say. They are 100% correct. In a sane world their arguments would be a firewall against those with anti-religious vendettas. Then again, in a sane world I would have believed those who said we faith folks should not worry about gay marriage. After all, they would never attempt to force us to participate--never force our bakers, photographers and florists to provide services to such events. Churches are being counseled to no-longer rent out their buildings for the weddings of non-members, lest they be forced to do so for gay marriages (once they place themselves in the marketplace . . . ). So, our world is no longer quite sane. Thus, my concern. Hopefully, I'm just gun-shy, Oberlin can pay the bakers the millions they deserve, and we won't have to battle those who want to litigate against entire churches because of the actions of one or a few.
    1 point
  19. I'm a bit surprised when people cannot see the connection, particularly Americans whose nation developed out of breaking the chains of religious oppression, and the casting off of government through violent means. It's one thing to say that God will protect our religious freedoms, but quite another to say the same after having given away the means God gave us to protect those freedoms. If a government comes in and simply takes away the people's ability to defend their rights then that's on the government. But then if people actually support the government disarming them it's on the people when their more precious rights are later stripped. Yes, one is direct, the other is not. But the requirement for the protection of rights draws a clear connection.
    1 point
  20. Last night we were reading Alma 2 as a family and my son asked if we know where the River of Sidon was. After a second I said, "No, we don't know. There are some that believe it is the Mississippi or the St. Lawrence river. Some believe it is in Central or South America, some believe it is in Baja California and I think it could be out west somewhere." I then told him that it does not matter where it was, what matters is that it was in the Americas and that the events of the Book of Mormon tell of events that really happened. I know some BYU professors and others think it is some allegorical story, but I know that the Spirit has testified to me that it is true. All of these arguments about Where and How do nothing to strengthen testimonies of the restored gospel and in fact damage testimonies. So, please tread lightly.
    1 point
  21. I have a story that starts the same way. And it ends basically the same way, with one big difference. Here's how I told the world on Facebook: The whole neighborhood rejoiced - it had been killing their chickens too. We live outside city limits, and the Sheriff is quite clear about not giving a crap about stuff like this, so we disposed of the little guy ourselves.
    1 point
  22. I want this to deploy as planed so bad. But I predict badness. Too many points of failure. Original planned launch was 2017, currently pushed back to 2021.
    1 point
  23. I agree with him. In medicine we have a complication conference wherein we discuss what went wrong, and why it went wrong. Occasionally the surgeon made a boneheaded decision but usually it is a honest mistake that occurred due to lack of understanding. Three mile island was a classic case of screwed up information. The reactor was not a submarine. The feedback from the reactor was incorrect. They allowed the unit to run with a patchwork setup. And the alarm no workie if 60 alarms are going off at the same time! As soon as you recognize that complications occur and try to recognize what went wrong, the sooner you can make better decisions and fix stupid systems.
    1 point
  24. And this is fine. For example, I accept President Nelson as a true prophet of God. If he were to instruct us to disarm and work toward gun control or even abolition—something I don't think is a remote possibility—then I would follow his lead. Until that time, I accept the foundational US Constitution as a divinely inspired document, including the Bill of Rights.
    1 point
  25. A father was telling Torah stories to his young children. He read, "The man named Lot was warned to take his wife and flee out of the city and never look back. But, his wife looked back, sadly, and so was turned to salt." His son asked, "What happened to the flea?"
    1 point
  26. Several states are attempting to bypass the Constitution by voting in this popular vote pact. However, I believe all the states doing so are already heavily blue. So, unless they can reach 270 electoral votes, or they can draw in some red and "purple" states, this movement will probably fade after a couple more election cycles.
    1 point
  27. One of the few effective bits of slactivism - making sure you post stuff like this on your facebook feed once every year or so, and twice in election years:
    1 point
  28. Thanks for the clarification. I don't think anyone is suggested that God doesn't (or that we don't, or shouldn't) bless animals. The question centers around the ordinance of the laying on of hands, not the general idea of blessing someone/something.
    1 point
  29. I recall an account from an address given at General Conference, probably between 3 - 5 years ago, I can't remember who by, of a time when whoever was telling the story, approached the desk at the Salt Lake temple and handed over their recommend. Because it looked different (and no information was provided as to how it looked different) the person at the desk said they didn't accept that kind of card.
    1 point
  30. I believe they sign their own recommends. Just like mission presidents.
    1 point
  31. From my time as an ordinance worker (mind you, this was 15 years ago) we were told that, when manning the front desk, General Authorities would have temple recommends that looked a little different and were only signed by themselves. I never saw one. But they do have a different recommend. I have no documentation to verify this. I imagine it is in the temple presidency handbooks.
    1 point
  32. I remember hearing a general authority tell that he would meet with his bishop for tithing settlement at the end of each year, so I believe that while it may seem redundant coming from a general authority I would think they still follow the procedure to have a recommend interview with their Bishop and Stake President when needed. The simple act of declaring their worthiness is still an important rite of passage if you will. Even apostles can make errors and may need to repent of something from time to time.
    1 point
  33. If you truly feel this way I would start praying for the right door and looking for another job. My last job lasted about five and a half years. It was so bad in my opinion I was looking for another job for over a year before I could not take anymore and just sent my resignation e-mail and quit. Sometimes your mind cannot take anymore and I felt this way. I was then blessed to start another great job two weeks later after resigning my old job. I have been at my current job for over two years and I love it. The right opportunity is out there for you and I hope you find it.
    1 point
  34. Elder Renlund spoke to a group of us recently and talked about all the changes that have happened in the Church over the past 18 months. He mentioned that soon, the age for males wanting to serve a mission would be moving to 16yrs old. He stated the following two reasons for the change to 16: 1. 16 years old boys "think they know everything" 2. Their mothers would be happy to see them leave the house at that age. This was a JOKE shared by the Apostle.
    0 points
  35. anatess2

    This Week in Onion News!

    Latest Mormon entry on the Bee... https://babylonbee.com/news/evangelical-mistaken-for-mormon-after-treating-everyone-with-kindness-respect
    0 points
  36. Meanwhile, on the MoresCam... (This might be the NTCam, I always get confused. They have us Thirdhour mods sitting in a room with one wall totally covered in spy monitors...)
    0 points
  37. So... the one and only time I shot my husband's gun (a 12-gauge shotgun), I got so startled by the boom I ended up dropping the thing. My husband thinks I should just stick with the spear.
    0 points
  38. I'm probably just gun-shy (pun intended) after watching a documentary about Sanctuary Church (PA). The spiritual leader is one of Rev. Moon, Sunmyung's (Unification Church) sons. He wears a camo-suit, and insists "the rod of iron" in the Bible means rifles. His parishioners attend church with their rods of iron, while wearing 'crowns' made out of bullets. Personally...I'm a gun rights guy. Can't shoot though...so, I'm thankful for those that aim and shoot well and righteous.
    0 points
  39. Triangle man hates Blue man. They have a fight. Triangle wins.
    0 points
  40. If I were inclined to support gun control, I might point out that the Bill of Rights wisely protected guns, but not bullets. So, how about bullet control, huh? huh? Hey! And this is why @prisonchaplain should stick to religion.
    0 points
  41. I think the Lord is understanding of mortal weaknesses who exhibit great faith even when that faith sometimes leads them to look a bit beyond the mark, so to speak, in some particular things. A statement that any given idea is a misunderstanding of a principle doesn't reflect upon the goodness of the individual who misunderstands, though it is often taken that way. It reflects upon the principle. But those misunderstandings can be dangerous and if not corrected in said individual's thinking, do pose a risk for falling away.
    0 points
  42. That jerk? I wouldn't have anything to do with him. Oh wait, I thought you said Peter Jordanson. Carry on.
    0 points