Leaderboard

The song is only about the prophet at the beginning. It is about the lord. 1. We thank thee, O God, for a prophet To guide us in these latter days. We thank thee (God) for sending the gospel To lighten our minds with its rays. We thank thee (God) for every blessing Bestowed by thy (Gods) bounteous hand. We feel it a pleasure to serve thee (God) And love to obey thy (God’s) command. 2. When dark clouds of trouble hang o’er us And threaten our peace to destroy, There is hope smiling brightly before us, (God) And we know that deliv’rance is nigh. We doubt not the Lord nor his (God’s) goodness. We’ve proved him (God) in days that are past. The wicked who fight against Zion Will surely be smitten at last. 3. We’ll sing of his (God’s) goodness and mercy. We’ll praise him (God) by day and by night, Rejoice in his (God’s) glorious gospel, And bask in its life-giving light. Thus on to eternal perfection The honest and faithful will go, While they who reject this glad message Shall never such happiness know. i am amazed how many members think this about the prophet and not god.

1. Only the Gospel of Jesus Christ can unite the world as one. He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. He personally prayed for us to become one with He and the Father. He WANTS us to be one. There is no other way because He is the Way. 2. Politicians, like the lawyers in The Book of Mormon, purposely cause division amongst the people. Why? Because that is how they grow their business and that is how they maintain power over the people. To the point that we beg and plead for them to “do something” to stop the opposition, to stop whatever emergency is occurring, and to come up with solutions for us on a myriad of questionable subjects. There is a continual back and forth shifting of laws and principles in which we “need” them to fight for our side. 3. The news media never lets a good “crisis” go to waste. That is how they grow financially. It’s bad for business when there is nothing to report. We don’t “need them” when things are good. (Even the most ideal society among the Nephites after the Savior’s visit only received half a chapter of discussion from Mormon. There was only so much to report!) Therefore, we can never fully trust what the media reports because only the sensational gets reported. Using the news media as our main source to know what is happening around us creates a skewed view of reality as opposed to the Spirit that teaches things as they really are and really will be. 4. Even under the guidance of Captain Moroni, there were still kingmen. The point: If we take the above items as true, then the question really becomes a personal evaluation of our time and our priorities. How do we spend our time and are our priorities properly focused? So, @Vort, while I pretty much fall into line with your same views of the situation you outlined above, I would say that it ultimately matters far less than what we are doing to help bring about the Gospel of Jesus Christ so that we can actually become unified as one.

I feel both major parties in the US are evil and both promote many evil things. There are things they promote that may be good, but at the same time they are filled with gadiantons. It is a choice between two evils rather than one good and one evil. I think it is a mistake to marry one's morals, views, and/or identity with one party or another, but that's just me speaking personally on my own view on allegiances and such.

In case you don't know, you can get texts every day this week "with inspiring ways to #HearHim this Easter, no matter what your circumstances may be" by texting EASTER to 71234 or emails by entering your email address at comeuntochrist.org. Zechariah 9:9 Luke 19:28-40

As we, and the rest of the world, face many uncertainties related to COVID-19 I particularly found comfort in the following comments provided to us during General Conference: When vs. If. Elder Uchtdorf said... something to investigators of the Church to come visit with us in our homes once COVID has passed. My notes were sloppy at this point, I'm sure someone else can provide the exact quote later once the transcripts actually come out. Either way...I definitely found peace from the talks given in General Conference.

Well...er...uh...:::cough::: Politifact is a left-wing website. It is routinely labeled as such--yes, but conservative media...and, of course, its victims. The site will occasionally call out liberal errors, but in its subject choices and interpretation methods it leans left. In one of the more humorous cases, according to Newsmax, Politifact said Senator Cruz had lied when he said Iran had a holiday celebrating American deaths (can't remember if Cruz said it was rooted in the hostage crisis of the late 1970s, or some event afterwards). In context, Cruz was engaging in hyperbole and was humorously pointing out that Iran could not be trust. Politifact, with straightened face, and utmost seriousness, suggested that Cruz had lied--that no such holiday existed. I guess they showed him.

Not at all. "We thank thee, o God, for a prophet [and for a bunch of other stuff listed herein]". This is a hymn of thanks to God for his many blessings, a few of which were specified.

President Nelson - “If we are to have any hope of sifting through the myriad of voices and the philosophies of men that attack truth, we must learn to receive revelation.” I don’t believe that there is any other way.

Yeah, I'm with doing it the hard way. We should all be naturally suspicious of all sources who purport to tell us the truth, and present their comparison between two sides as accurate. So you've hung with Politifact since the Bush administration, and you figure it presents an accurate reality? They call that confirmation bias. Unalterable truth of the universe #1 that you must accept in order to have your opinions taken seriously: There is no such thing as zero bias. Everyone, every organization has a bias. Unalterable truth of the universe #2 that you must accept in order to have your opinions taken seriously: We all have confirmation bias. We all tend to give greater weight to the source that tells us what we already believe. It's a human thing, and unless you strive to be aware of it working in yourself, you can't be a persuasive voice, you're only a mouthpiece for whatever opinions you happen to have.

How exactly does it quantify the percentages when they don't actually fact check everything said? How does it quantify when they cherry pick what statements they do check? Also, if Obama and Trump each tell a half-truth / half-lie they will say Obama's statement is mostly true and Trump's is mostly false. Politifact? Really? C'mon man.

Politifact is Anti-Trump. Blatantly. They've been inaccurately fact checking covid-19 and even Obama's H1N1 left and right. I don't trust Fact Checkers. Nobody is Fact Checking the Fact Checkers. I do my own Fact Check even if the source is a Fact Checker. This is just 2 of their blatant anti-Trump "fact checking":

I was going to start a new thread. But I decided it fits with this comment. I found the following item in the kitchen today. Apparently it is a "watering can" made by my 8 yo "Bumble Bee." I remarked,"Ok, I guess it would be useful if you dip it into the pond then drop the water into the garden, back and forth." I noted a weakness in the design due to a hole placed at the level of the hollow handle. My wife informed me,"That's not a handle. It's the spout." I burst out in laughter at a "spout" that holds more volume than the container itself. It is just this kind of stuff that I often miss out on when I'm working all the time. I have the cutest kids.

I say it because it is true. My evidence is all of the substantive lies that Obama told. Sure I can. More to the point, I can say that PolitiFact is a cynically misnamed website that pushes a very obvious agenda. To wit: ********************************************************************************************************** (1) In 2009, PolitiFact did an "Obameter" claim where candidate Obama promised: "I will immediately sign a law that begins to phase out all incandescent light bulbs - a measure that will save American consumers $6 billion a year on their electric bills." PolitiFact's verdict: Promise Kept, despite PolitiFact's own acknowledgement that it was Bush, not Obama, that signed the legislation. Their excuse was as follows: Way back in October 2007, candidate Barack Obama pledged to "immediately sign a law that begins to phase out all incandescent light bulbs." About two months later, President George W. Bush signed a bill to do that -- the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. So for the purposes of this promise, we won't focus on whether Obama signed such a bill as president, but rather whether the goal was advanced. Well, I suppose that sort of makes sense, especially if you're a Democrat. The legislation had already been passed, so Obama didn't need to personally sign it. And as PolitiFact documents, the net effect was to move people away from incandescent and toward other light bulb types.1 Remember that: It's important later. 1By the way, please note that the total US usage of electricity for home lighting is about 5% of the total energy used. So saving, say, a whopping 20% (!!!) on lighting consumption gives an overall impact of about 1% of the actual energy usage. That's one percent, as in one-one-hundredth the total usage. In short, worrying about energy consumption from lighting is worrying about water leaking into your boat through a loose joint between boards when you have a gaping hole in the hull. The point is that PolitiFact rated Obama's claim about "phasing out incandescent light bulbs" as true. Okay, whatever. So far, so good, gymnastics aside. But what if a conservative group makes exactly the same claim? (2) Two years later, in 2011, PolitiFact reported on a conservative fundraising group claiming that Democrats banned incandescent light bulbs. The wording here is potentially problematic: "The Democrats have already voted to BAN our conventional lights bulbs (that you and I use even today!) in favor of DANGEROUS fluorescent light bulbs," writes Alan Gottlieb, chairman of AmeriPAC, a political action committee that largely supports conservative Republican candidates. Uh-oh. This specifies "fluorescent light bulbs" as the replacement. An apples-to-oranges comparison, perhaps? Nope. PolitiFact conveniently spares us this problem by explicitly clarifying, "But the bigger issue here is the claim that the bill bans incandescent light bulbs." So that's what they're focused on: That Democrats have banned incandescent light bulbs. Of course, based on the article two years earlier, where PolitiFact was crowing about how Obama's (and Bush's) efforts were doing exactly that, you might think that of course PolitiFact would rate this claim as true! They already admitted it was true! That was the whole point! PolitiFact might disagree with AmeriPAC's political reasoning, but it already conceded their point! Right? Right? RIGHT? Wrong. PolitiFact's ruling: Pants on Fire. Their basis: The legislation requires increased efficiency, which might effectively ban incandescents, but the bill itself does not explicitly ban incandescents. So PolitiFact rated AmeriPAC's claim about "banning incandescent light bulbs" as false. ********************************************************************************************************** Let's sum up. Your supposedly unbiased, reliable source PolitiFact rated liberal Obama's claim that he would "phase out all incandescent light bulbs"—which, remember, was literally false—as true (Promise Kept). Then that same supposedly unbiased, reliable source rated conservative AmeriPAC's claim that "Democrats have already voted to BAN our conventional lights bulbs"—which was in effect true—as completely false (Pants on Fire). Oh, come on! you might say. Surely things are better now! PolitiFact must be much more equitable in their rating system today! Like, for example, if Joy Behar makes an utterly false claim about Trump. Doubtless they'll pounce on that as a Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire! Oops. Guess not. Behar's whopper did manage to eke out a False rating (since it was, you know, egregiously and provably false). But apparently, Pants on Fire is reserved for those of a more conservative mindset. So a final question to @Scott: How can you maintain with a straight face that PolitiFact is in any way a believable, unbiased source?

Good to see you, Carb. I felt the same as you regarding this moment from conference (I was so hoping to hear some Slavic singing). But, my feelings during this hymn was that we weren't singing so much about Joseph or our current prophet, but about our Prophet, our King, our Savior.

James E. Talmage taught the following in the book Jesus The Christ: "At the ninth hour, or about three in the afternoon, a loud voice, surpassing the most anguished cry of physical suffering issued from the central cross, rending the dreadful darkness. It was the voice of the Christ: "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" What mind of man can fathom the significance of that awful cry? It seems, that in addition to the fearful suffering incident to crucifixion, the agony of Gethsemane had recurred, intensified beyond human power to endure. In that bitterest hour the dying Christ was alone, alone in most terrible reality. That the supreme sacrifice of the Son might be consummated in all its fulness, the Father seems to have withdrawn the support of His immediate Presence, leaving to the Savior of men the glory of complete victory over the forces of sin and death." (Pages 660 to 661.)

Longtime TH members will perhaps remember how NOT pro-Trump I was four years ago. I believe the best thing I had to say about the man was that he was a much less evil choice than Hillary Clinton. Damning by faint praise, indeed. That was then. This is now. What a difference four years can make. Not that I'm a huge Donald lover. While I do not find him nearly as repulsive as I did four years ago, I can't pretend he's my top choice. He's vulgar, he's intentionally divisive, he talks and acts like a junior high school wannabe bully. Frankly, he has invited much of the media criticism he gets. And he cannot possibly pretend to fiscal conservatism when he doesn't care a whit about budget concerns or a crushing deficit that, if we started right now working toward reducing it, our great-grandchildren would pay off. But Trump has done some good and even remarkable things. He has shown some real leadership, at times at least. If he doesn't portray the statesman as well as Obama sometimes did, perhaps that's because he's less fundamentally dishonest than Obama is. Certainly no reasonable person can pretend that the mainstream media has not taken a decisive stand against him, to the point that they no longer even have a pretense of objectivity in their reporting. In their eyes, Trump is Hitler, and the media is doing their patriotic duty in slandering him at every turn, shamelessly propagandizing even worldwide disasters, and with no scruples about misrepresenting and outright lying about things if it furthers their holy agenda. My extreme distaste for the media and those who run that monster machine actually pushes me into Trump's camp, a thing I might not have believed possible four years ago. This is not because Trump is so virtuous, but because his haters are so unbelievably vile. I think I'm at least as resistant to kneejerk reactionism as the average American, and probably quite a bit more than average. If I find myself being polarized by the bitter hatred of society (read: the political left, primarily), what hope is there that the American people as a whole can rise above it? Maybe what we need is a really good, deadly epidemic to stop all our squabbling. But when I look at what the media stands for and the fact that they're puppets of the political left, how do I stop "squabbling" with those who actively seek to undermine marriage and literally kill babies? How do you compromise with Satan or with those who openly preach his version of good news? Is there another way of viewing these events and our situation that bypasses this conclusion? Real question.

It is interesting to me that this ^^^^^^ is not considered proof???? Not just in an election but in any political decision or action. Like who profited (individually and collectively) from actions taken in Ukraine, or other programs domestically and abroad. If any funds go directly into family members pockets - that is a sign of corruption. PERIOD.... The Traveler

I am not a fan of Trump. With that in mind here is a little list lies by Obama and his administration: #1. Fast and Furious - Not only did the Obama administration lie (the extent of the lie we still do not know how serious because the attorney general (Eric Holder) refused to turn over subpoenaed documents. We would not have know of this lie if a US border security guard had not been killed because of the lie that Fast and Furious had been canceled. #2. Benghazi - The Obama administration lied about the cause, who was involved and actions taken to keep our official ambassador safe. Obama specifically lied when he said that those involved in the murder would be brought to justice. When it was disclosed who was involved and their connections to the Obama paid intelligence operatives - nothing was done to bring them to justice - and no one was disciplined for the lapses in protecting our ambassador. Please note that in both of the above cases of lies from the Obama administration that innocent American officials (citizens) lost their lives directly because of actions taken and then lied about and cover-up. #3. IRS holding up tax applications for conservative groups. The Obama administration lied about using the IRS to harass opposing political interests. When it was proven the Obama administration lied with promises to correct the problem. There was no disciplinary action taken towards anyone within the IRS. #4 The Obama administration lied about Carter Page before the FISA court to obtain severance of the Trump campaign and then lied again saying that the FBI was not wiring taping a political opponent. I personally do not know how to qualify how evil (bad) the intent of a lie is. But I am concerned with how broadly the lies of the Obama administration has been defended not just within a particular partisan political party but with what has become labeled as the main stream media - which make such lies - at least in my mind - much more dangerous. The Traveler

Solution: 1- Deeply, deeply internalize those two unalterable truths I mentioned before. 2- Do your own research and your own thinking. 3- Gather stories from a wide variety of sources. Assume "the truth" lies to the left of the right sources, and to the right of the left sources. Assume there are vast quantities of relevant facts you are not being told. 4- Learn to gauge how right, and how left, the various sources are. It's like trying to gauge the wind in golf, you know how much you correct for the wind in order to sink the ball. 5- Follow the money, think about how a claim impacts an election. 6- Develop the ability to tell which billy goat is talking to you.

There is no more cynical organization on the face of the earth than the news media. They manipulate everything and anything. One thing they've learned to manipulate with frightening precision is the human, common-sense tendency to seek middle ground. Person A voices Opinion X, and Person B spouts Opinion Y. Opinions X and Y now represent the poles of a one-dimensional continuum, and the truth of the matter must lie somewhere between the two. How to manipulate this? Easy. Obvious, in fact. You bias the polar opinions toward your slant. I remember years ago how Ellen Goodman, a leftist newspaper columnist, positioned herself as "centrist". I rolled my eyes but said nothing more, until a bit later I noticed that a newspaper analysis article was including her as a "moderate" or "centrist" voice. See that? That's how it's done. Example: The "far-left" crazies say that abortion must be allowed from conception to the age of three. The "right-wing" crazies say that abortion should not be allowed at all, thus enslaving women, which is good. The "centrist", "moderate", "sensible" position is that abortion should be available in all situations, yes, but only until childbirth occurs. See how that works? The pro-abortionists are the rational and even the compassionate ones! News media does this All.The.Time.

Wayback machine shows this page existed back in June. https://web.archive.org/web/20190606070508/https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/China But mention of Shanghai wasn't there back in January.

Many decades ago the members in the US had very few options of Temples outside of Utah. One of the main temples was the Washington DC temple. While I'm not positive of the entire range of those who attended it, I think 700 miles was within the range of those included in it's temple district. I remember people used to have it as a multiple day event when they went to the Temple, just to get there and then to return.

I would add one more: read as though it was talking about us. For me that is where I gain my greatest understanding, when I ask "How does that apply to my life?"

I'm in pretty much the same boat. 🚣. I'm absolutely amazed at how polarized politics has become. I didn't vote for Trump in the primary, but voted for him over Hillary. I don't care for him or his tactics, but his policies are similar to my own and much better than his opponents. The left is doing the same thing. I can't believe Biden is going to get the nomination. This lockdown is the best thing that could have happened to him. Once again this fall I'll be faced with voting for a man who I don't personally like but who's policies I largely support or voting for someone who seems incompetent and incompatible with my beliefs.

If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Fast & Furious IRS targeting of conservative groups Solyndra Jeremiah Wright Iran Nuclear deal including $400 Million payoff that we got nothing in return for Spying on Trump's Campaign Droning of US Citizens In case you're wondering why I named scandals instead of what he actually said: He lied about all of these. Regarding your politifact argument, I agree that they aren't as left wing as the MSM. But they are just a tad left of center. This tilts your numbers in the following ways: When a lie is said, a leftist politician is more likely to be given a "mostly false" rating than a "pants on fire rating" (as an example). Conversely, when Trump says virtually anything, he's almost always going to be given a lying rating no matter how slim a margin by which that "lie" can be considered dishonest. They are less likely to check a lie by a politician on the left than on the right. The sheer number of checks on Trump vs the sheer number of checks on Obama is a dead give away. Example: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/mar/27/donald-trump/fact-checking-whether-biden-called-trump-xenophobi/ Seriously? They point directly to the fact that Biden reacted to Trumps Corona actions as xenopobic, and yet give the claim a "mostly false" rating? You call this neutral?

Not quite. Benghazi and the youtube video was not anything about convincing. It was a blatant lie to make cover on an election. He even got Susan Rice to repeat the lie several times on national tv. He then got Candy Crowley to cover for that lie on the Presidential debates. The Russian Collusion narrative is a lie. It is a blatant lie to make cover for the Trump campaign wire tapping with the FISA warrant. It was such a blatant lie that only stands because MSM worked 24-hours-a-day to keep the cover. I don't count as lies consequences to policies that he implemented - I grant him the benefit of the doubt that he simply "didn't know" the consequences of his policies.

pretty sure that is false I’m 90% positive that it has nothing to do with the content and everything thing to do with the tempo and intensity. I don’t think I have ever heard Master the Tempest is Raging, Battle Hymn of the Republic, Called to Serve, or Count your Blessings. There is another song that starts with a heavy triplet melody intro on the piano but I can’t for the life of me remember what it is. (The song is “God of our Fathers, whose almighty hand”)

Spiritual smugness stinketh. On the other hand, I suspect our LORD would not have us cowering or walking on spiritual egg shells, constantly fearful and uncertain about our standing before the Almighty. To die to self is to love. Many of us did a bit of that on our wedding day...and then again as our children were born. Still, the ultimate is when I say to God, "Forgive me, take me, mold me, use me." This begins at conversion and continues daily...sometimes moment by moment.

1st off, congratulations (pre-)boomer. Look, are we under martial law or not? If we are then proclaiming looters will be shot is not sensationalist enough to warrant a headline. If we're not then this is ridiculous.

Hold on here - most of these are lies someone attributed to Trump - with the exception of Obama was not born in the USA. But lets review the others. Has Trump shown his tax returns? - it is not a lie nor is it illegal to not make tax returns public. Why on earth do you think otherwise??? Did he throw Hillary in jail yet? - Where did he say he would. He has said that she should be investigated and if guilty should be prosecuted. Is global warming a Chinese conspiracy? Where did he say that??? BTW - are any other planets in our solar system experiencing global warming? I am aware that Trump claims that China is increasing their carbon foot print more than any other country and that if the USA complied to all restrictions - it would make not difference just because of what China is doing - do you agree with Trump or not??? Is your healthcare much cheaper now that he has been elected? This is a loaded question. Healthcare is not the same as healthcare insurance or healthcare programs. I do not think anyone today even knows what healthcare costs are - there are too many other costs involved. The Traveler

I would suggest that the greatest lie or misrepresentation in the press (media) is the effort to present themselves as unbiased. Trying to hide one's bias is the great lie of the press. That is one reason I like Michel Savage - not because I agree with much he says but that he willingly admits (even brags) his bias. I happen to be a very biased fan of BYU and I have a brother that is a very biased fan of Utah. The reason we can sit together at a game between the two rivals is that we admit our bias openly to each other. We seldom agree on any call - but we can discuss it without hatting each other. I do not think we could continue without bias honesty. The Traveler

Call and response is more common in the south, and in African-American congregations. We have a bit, but it's more like, "Can I get an 'amen'?" and then a few will say 'amen.' This may happen up to a half dozen times in a 40-minute sermon. In my case, I might call for such once or not at all. Still, yes, it was strange using this format at first. My classes tend to rely heavily on discussion, so offering a continuous lecture with no feedback (I'm also trained as an elementary school teacher and so am used to feedback via nods and looks of understanding) was a bit challenging.

Me too. But if I don't see a dip in deaths the day of, or day after, I won't be concluding that we're not righteous enough or something like that. Stand by for updated charts.

I have no good solution at this moment. I'm currently in the complaining-bitterly-about-it phase, where I've been stuck for some decades. The ultimate solution is obviously to force people to take responsibility for what they say. Not sure how to enforce this on such a large scale, though.

Something very interesting related to this idea, but unrelated to the thread. There is a problematic item that's been occurring in history for almost 3 decades now (actually a little longer than that, but it's become far more amplified in the recent decades). It is acknowledge in the study of history that all historical writings and all history itself is written with bias. It is inherent. However, prior to the 1970s, for the most part, IN MY OPINION (therefore bias) there was a great degree to strive to be unbiased. Yes, you may have a bias in your writing, but you can strive to have as little of it bleed through in your relating history as possible. However, there was the counterpoint of revisionist history, where bias was seen as a strength and something to strive for rather than strive against. It started small (and a ex-Mormon/anti-Mormon historian was actually one of those who popularized it to a small amount) and over the years grew. Now, many try to have a bias in their historical writing or history books. As there is inherent bias already, rather than try to reduce it, they embrace it. Part of it I think is due to the desire in graduate work for publishing and thesis. The more sensational the thesis, the more one may feel they can accomplish what they set forth to do. It's completely taken over the field of history these days, and it seems more desire to find a point of view to push and argue in order to prove in their opinion and bias, rather than to relate something new or actually reveal something overlooked or overseen in writings instead. Instead of finding history, they are rewriting history. It's something that affects history today in many ways. This bleed through of trying to recognize there is bias but trying to avoid it, has changed to embracing bias and proving your bias is the better path than another's bias seems to be the course of history today.

LOL. Well...I do basic math, but last time I actually took Math as in study math and actually be involved heavy in it was during the years of my undergraduate which were decades ago. However, yes, I'm not a mathematician, nor do I do a LOT of it in my field. That's more for those involved with the maths, physics, hard sciences and engineers and their degrees. Don't fall back on my knowledge if one wants to know the answer to math questions. I will say that we can do a lot to help and that the local and state governments have done a great deal in many ways. Trump only recommended and didn't really do much (or hasn't done much that I've seen...yet) and some states which did not put in their own local regulations and enforcement showed the results of that recommendation...Florida and Louisiana are currently not doing all that hot. They were late locally in adhering. I'd put the onus on what we have done as humanity in the states more on the state and local government actions than anything Trump has done...at least thus far (or the Federal Government, to give a fair share all around, the Democrats were so focused on their witch hunt that the distractions also caused a detrimental effect in my opinion). I don't see the 'stimulus' as actually being all that useful in fighting the Coronavirus, or actually in relation to dollars spent, even actually being an effective use of money to get the economy out of the slump it is going into. Thus far, if it gets turned around the Lord has my first thanks in a miracle, and after that it would be that many governors and local governments did all they could to try to stem the tide of the virus when they realized that the Federal Government wasn't going to do squat. As it is, we STILL have the most infections in the world...and that's probably not ALL the infections we have as we didn't even have the tests to see how far the infections spread. Even with their measures in place we've still seen the virus spreading and cases increasing drastically. If we end up with lower predictions than the original ones (originally, I think it was a little less than 100K deaths, but that was with certain expectations which I'm not sure were met) I think we can thank the Lord. If it continues to rise as it has, but stops short of the 150K I still think we can thank the Lord. I think we may have been doing what we can, but the Lord in these cases is perhaps doing far more than people may attribute to him. Personal thoughts on the matter...of course. We all have different beliefs, opinions, and thoughts, these are simply mine on the matter currently. I don't feel as if it's a hoop, but more exercising what I heard in conference (and what I got out of it may be different than what other people did, we all get different things out of conference). Elder Holland's talk on hope resonated with me, and I think President Nelson knows about medicine and science. He seems to give weight to prayer and fasting as well, and even if I see the science and other items, I have faith, or at least a hope, in the direction of the Prophet at times (and sometimes faith fails me, I admit that, but I still can hope, especially in these drastic times).

Everybody lies. This is my opinion only on Obama versus Trump speaking style: Obama - manipulates truth to achieve an agenda. Every statement is prepared. Basically the exact same thing the MSM does. Was the Benghazi attack caused by a Youtube video? Of course not. There is a youtube video - true. Obama manipulated this truth to achieve an agenda - deflect the Benghazi incident away from the Obama/Clinton massive failure. The MSM does this day in and day out to achieve an agenda. Trump - 2 kinds: 1.) brain to mouth without filter. "There were thousands and thousands of people in New Jersey celebrating the 9/11 attacks". He saw/read something about it on the news over 10 years ago. He doesn't bother to be accurate about referencing what he saw/read. 2.) Manipulates truth to spin it to maximum persuasiveness. Or says something as truth when it is him trying to make something true by force of will. Basically the exact same thing a product advertisement does. "The tax cut is going to happen before the mid-term elections" (trying to make something true by force of will) or "We’re prepared, and we’re doing a great job with it. And it will go away. Just stay calm. It will go away." This is how you sell cars. It doesn't help that Trump does not have a smooth command of language. It is very easy to take him out of context through pull-quotes. Obama doesn't have a smooth command of language either but the way he masks this is through pause-words (usage of ah, uhm, or stuttering the first syllable while forming the statement in his mind) so it's not as easy to take his statements out of context. Trump just says what's in his mind even if it is still in the form of a jumble of words and not a sentence. He speaks as he thinks. Biden does this too, by the way. He just has massive political speaking experience so he's not as grating on the ears as Trump sounds. Obama thinks first, then speaks - always focused on the agenda, choosing his words carefully. Which one is better? Trump. Hands down. It's much easier to understand the motives of a car salesman and detect when he's taking you on a ride than to detect when you're getting conned by a con artist. Especially when the people in charge of the dissemination of information (journalists) are in on the con.

Deal. I'm keeping score in Colorado. Here's the daily death chart, up to the day of conference. (Blue line is statewide, red line is my county.) CO daily death toll, counting backwards from today: 14, 15, 14, 17, 11 I'll post an update later today to see if we get a "sudden drop off" - that would mean less than 14 deaths. I'll post another update the day after our Friday fast, to see what happens then. Full disclosure: I've seen genuine miracles in my life that have come about through prayer and priesthood blessings. I've heard a hundred faith-promoting-stories that could be chance, or could be divine intervention. I'm guessing God will not alter the laws of physics and biology and viral population spread factors because the world unites in prayer, but I'd be very much happy to learn I've guessed wrong. Having you see your inclination realized through hard data would make me happy. Again, I have personally witnessed and experienced miracles. It's just that I've learned that when I expect God's blessings to be dramatically and undeniably shown in ways that I expect, I've pretty much always been disappointed. Can't really be disappointed in God, much better lesson is to be disappointed in myself for setting up a hoop for God to jump through.

DID YOU REALLY JUST USE POLITIFACT AS YOUR SOURCE ON OBJECTIVITY ON TRUMP? Goodness gracious, Batman. KNOW YOUR SOURCE!

About the China thing: Shanghai and Hong Kong are over 700 miles from each other. Is Shanghai *really* merely a substitute for the closure of the Hong Kong temple?

Also... does anyone else see the irony?

I never noticed the announcement on the Church Website. Around what month was it posted? Anyway, It was interesting that the Dubai temple was at the request of their government (at least that is what Pres. Nelson seemed to say. Did I mis-hear him?). But the Shanghai temple was a concession that the Chinese government made because of the condition of the Hong Kong temple (rennovation). I think this is a good example of how bad things can lead to good things. Anytime a door is closed, a window opens.

For your consideration, "Mormon Church" has never been approved as a nickname for the Church of Jesus Christ, although "Mormon" has been embraced in the past as a nickname for its saints. https://askgramps.org/nickname-mormon-victory-adversary/

I think there is some truth to what you are saying, but we shouldn’t speak so harshly and definitively of how things were in the past. I honestly belief that the name “Mormon” helped our religion get into the minds of everyone. Now that everyone knows who we are, let’s start adjusting their perception.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/restoration-proclamation

If I may wax rhapsodic for a moment: It was quite poignant to hear the coordinated hymn at the end. Y'all know it felt cool for me to hear it in Korean. I was quite struck by the Spirit as we heard all the nations change to English at the end. It dawned on me that the message was that we are fulfilling Joseph Smith's prophecy of the Standard of Truth. And we are coming together to be unified in the faith. We are all one people. As the end of the Book of Mormon describes the separation of people into tribes, we see that happening today. The partisanship in the US is only a small part of what is going on in the world. The whole world is separating and isolating. The cancel culture is only a symptom. But the Church IS OUR TRIBE. And instead of separating, we are coming together from all over the world. I realize that "We Thank Thee, O God, for a Prophet" is usually aimed at our current prophet ("to guide us in these latter days"). But this particular expression seemed to me as an homage to ALL modern prophets, and particularly to the Prophet of the Restoration. Did anyone else feel that?

David Burge (aka “Iowahawk”) has observed that liberals often go through a four-stage process: —Identify a respected institution —Kill it —Gut it —Wear its carcass as a skin suit, while demanding respect. Christianity has been a victim of this process since long before modern political liberalism made its arrival. It got to the where it was “Christians” who tried to steal the gold plates from Joseph Smith, “Christians” who shot little Sardius Smith at point-blank range, “Christians” who gang-raped Eliza Snow and scored of other Mormon women, “Christians” who murdered Joseph Smith, “Christians” who drove the Saints of God out of their country and then turned on each other for a hundred years of unlimited warfare from the Civil War to World War 2 and beyond. “Christians” who have told God to shut up, preferring to worship their biblical exegeses. “Christians” who are increasingly replacing the scriptural Jesus and His law, with a bizarre libertine hybrid of Santa Claus and omnipotent pimp. We looked at the word “Christian”, saw it for the hollowed-out shell that it was, and said “screw that. We don’t want it.” And we went off into the wilderness; and with God’s help we built something new, something blessed, something wonderful—and we acquiesced as the world called that thing “Mormonism”. But the Second Coming draws ever nearer; and it would seem that before the Bridegroom returns—one of His instructions is that the bride to go and get her skin-suit back. So, we will. Nominal “Christians” may consider themselves to be on notice—if they aren’t going to live and love their religion—their true religion; there are yet Saints who will.

One of the coolest things I own, is a Mother Goose Nursery Rhymes book printed in the early 1900's. I oughta break it out for this thread. If you're waiting to be astounded by Ring around the Rosy, that thing had page after page of death, disease, maiming, unjust imprisonment by tyrannical royalty, and monsters. And one of the coolest things I did as a young father was read my sweet little bebbesh every single dang one of them.

Wouldn’t a digital comic be a cartoon movie/show? Because it seems that a digital comic with still frames would be an exceptionally boring thing to read through...

Trump was NOT slow to react, not even in retrospect. He downplayed events to stem panic. His task force maintained communication with the American people the entire time even without media coverage so you can easily go to the CDC or White House press releases and see exactly what they did since last November.