Leaderboard

When I was teaching Institue, I came across a theory that Mormon was a Lamanite. He identifies as a "descendant of Nephi" in his own writing, but by 300 AD, it wouldn't be unreasonable to have both Lamanite and Nephite heritage. Mormon also features the Anti-Nephi-Lehis, a group of Lamanite converts, very heavily in his abridgement. He also features the people of Limhi, who desired to live among he Nephites, in his abridgement. Whether it is factually correct or not, I don't know. But it was in intriguing thought. And so, when my ward's young men decided to hold a Book of Mormon marathon (they attempted to read the entirety of the Book of Mormon in 24 hours), I decided to participate and that I would try to read and interpret the text from the perspective of Mormon being a Lamanite. I observed something in the process, and will try to explain and quantify it here. In this particular reading, one word started to stand out to me. That word was 'filthy' (and its variants) There are 34 occurrences of 'filth' in the Book of Mormon (via a text search at http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17/pg17.txt). These can be categorized into 30 uses (some phrases use the term twice, such as in 'he who filthy shall be filthy still' 10 uses by Nephi 1 use by Isaiah 7 uses by Jacob 3 uses by Alma 2 uses by Mormon quoting/paraphrasing Limhi 1 use by Mormon 2 uses by Moroni In six uses, filthy is used to describe the Lamanites. Once by Nephi, three times by Jacob, once by Enos, and once by Mormon The six uses to describe the Lamanites are what interest me the most. I'm going to go ahead and post all of those verses here: From the context of all of these, it's reasonable to conclude that 'filthy' was a pretty heavy hitting term. Perhaps even close to what we might consider a slur. In the context of Nephi's culture (specifically, cultural Jew from Jerusalem), the word 'filthy' could probably be replaced with 'unclean.' Which was also pretty serious. (See also Alma 32:3 for a pejorative use of 'filthy') Now, let's also consider that there is a certain likelihood that the Lamanites joined forces with other indigenous peoples in the area. These people wouldn't have been Israelites, and so would have been seen as outsiders to the Nephites. Israel wasn't exactly what we would call a tolerant society, so it shouldn't surprise us if there was a touch of racism directed toward those outsiders. As a parallel, consider the relationship between the Jews and the Samaritans--the Samaritans were cultural Jews who intermingled their religion with some of the pagan religions in the area, and they were heavily despised by the 'pure' Jews for it. Most of the references don't make an explicit tie to skin color. Nephi and Mormon both use the term 'dark', which may have reference to skin color. In all honesty, it probably does. It's the references by Enos and Jacob that are really informative though. Enos gives a description of the Lamanites that is broad and perhaps promotes a stereotype of the Lamanites. It's a caricature, and I'm inclined to take it with a grain of salt. In fairness, Nephi was barely old enough to be Enos' grandfather, so the wounds and intercultural strifes between the Nephites and the Lamanites at this point in time are pretty raw still. If you add in unfamiliar cultures from any of the indigenous peoples the Lamanites may have joined, the stereotyping hypothesis becomes a little more plausible. Jacob is the really interesting speaker in all of this, though. He actually goes to great length to separate 'filthiness' from 'skin'. This is important--in one respect, this strengthens the hypothesis that 'filthy' was a type of slur. More importantly, Jacob makes it explicit that 'filthiness' is a spiritual condition, and goes so far as to state that Nephites are the filthier race because their wickedness is greater than that of the Lamanites. In other words, Jacob explicitly rejects the link between skin color and supremacy. Ultimately, the conclusion I've come to at this phase of my study is that there did exist a certain amount of racism and classism among the Nephites against the Lamanites. Mormon himself seemed to harbor some of these biases. In 3 Nephi 2:15-16, he describes converted Lamanites as having their skin become "white like unto the Nephites" and that their sons and daughters became "exceedingly fair." Given Mormon's general reticence to use 'filthy' to describe anything other than a spiritual condition, I'm inclined to believe that he is describing their physical attractiveness. In other words, the Nephite culture and those of Mormon's culture seem to have determined lighter skin to be the standard of beauty. The question that follows that conclusion is "how could prophets of God harbor those biases?" Well, they were still human, and still suffered from the imperfections of man. Moroni explicitly states this. And so if we read the right bits and pieces, it isn't difficult to paint a picture for "white supremacy in the Book of Mormon." However, if you read the broader teachings contained in that scripture, it becomes clear that filthiness--as used by the Book of Mormon authors--is strictly a spiritual condition that is not tied to skin color. Jacob makes that point inarguable. I recommend we follow Moroni's plea. Let us learn to be more wise than they have been and reject racial supremacy. Instead, let's recognize the beautiful truths of the Book of Mormon, the Bible, and all other scripture that teach that all men are children of God and that he desires all of them to return to his presence.

No. The Soviets definitely used the Titanium (Search, for instance, Alfa Class submarine). They could afford it, since they had control of some of the richest titanium deposits in the world (in Sibera). There may be differences in characteristics between small, sea exploration submarines and large submarines carrying nuclear reactors and warheads.

Discussions about dark-skinned Lamanites aside, some of the other points the OP raises are not unique to the Book of Mormon. For whatever reason, “shining” countenances are also associated in the Bible with divine power being upon a person; the color “white” with purity (though alternately, in some instances, with leprosy and sickness) and black or red with dirt, sin, blood, and/or death. If a modern social justice warrior is so hard-hearted that ze can’t abide a religion where divine goodness is spoken of as “light” (and its absence as “darkness”)—I don’t think there’s much the Church can do for said individual in that hard-hearted state. There’s a fine line where a noble cause transitions into a false god.

Fun thing about titanium: We have a super critical water oxidizer (SCWO) reactor at work to treat some toxic byproducts of our primary process. The SCWO sits in a titanium sleeve, and the chemical process reduces the toxic organics into salt water. The process happens inside a titanium sleeve. The process is corrosive enough that we have to replace the 12' long titanium sleeve every 100 hours of operation. Another fun thing about titanium: U.S. Submarines are made from steel. When they descend to their crush depth, the steel compresses and the submarine gets smaller. But upon ascending, the steel expands again into it's original size. U.S. submarines may descend to this crush depth repeatedly. Russian submarines are made from titanium. When the descend to their crush depth, the titanium compresses and the submarine gets smaller. But upon ascending, the titanium does not expand to its original size. Russian submarines may only descend to their crush depth once, and then they can never go that deep again. But the Russian submarine crush depth is much, much deeper than the U.S. submarine crush depth.

Now lets see if anyone that 'claimed' it was a noose will step up an offer an apology for being wrong. The "it was a noose, racist NASCAR people etc." got X amount of airtime. The "it wasn't a noose" will get <1% of X in airtime.

Because people have been reading it through a 19th -21st century cultural lens instead of the Hebrew/Jewish cultural lens of the authors who lived in 600 BC - 400 AD.

Or perhaps characterizing Brigham Young as "racist" is yet another absurd example of the mindless presentism so common among the under-40 crowd. I refuse to believe that today's generation is significantly stupider than my own. They should be able to figure this out.

No it's not. I'm trying to demonstrate the fallacy of the argument: "Don't waste your efforts seeking justice for the falsely accused, when there are real rape victims who need justice far more." You might just as easily say "Don't waste your efforts seeking justice for rape victims, when there are murder victims out there."

Well if Queolby is a troll posting under a fake identity (his avatar picture) then shame on him/her and may the negative energy that is circulating in his/her brain not cause further mental illness and stress. My theory. First of all let me state that I have never ever in my life EVER lost sleep at night thinking about this issue (I am a mixed race, lifelong Mormon). Its a non issue to me because its pretty simple to understand that the Gospel of Jesus Christ require a person to act a certain way and not look a certain way. If I were to guess though, I would say that Lehi and his family were light skinned followers of Christ. When they arrived in the Americas there were already civilizations of people living here who were dark skinned. The dark skinned natives did not have the Gospel of Jesus Christ and worshipped idols and had traditions that were in alignment with influences from satan. To not be in alignment with Gods ways is to be cursed, or cut off from God. These dark skinned natives were "cursed" or cut off from God. For God to curse Laman and Lemuals posterity with dark skin could have simply meant that Laman and lemual, through their disobedience, left the group and righteous beliefs of their light skinned brothers (the Nephites) and started to mix with the dark skinned natives, this would explain the literal changing of skin color from light to dark. Why would dark skin be a curse? Because mixing with the dark skinned natives also meant that Laman and Lemual adopted the natives unrighteous beliefs and therefore became cursed. This mixing of civilizations also explains why populations in the BkofM grew so rapidly.

Liar? Or just terminally stupid? Maybe both. FBI determines no federal crime was committed against Bubba Wallace while investigating noose in his garage The noose was actually a pull rope set up by a team that used the garage in 2019 https://www.cbssports.com/nascar/news/fbi-determines-no-federal-crime-was-committed-against-bubba-wallace-while-investigating-noose-in-his/

I grew up in a Catholic family. My parents didn't need to teach me anything about the "full history of the (Catholic or LDS) Church" for me to understand both churches is full of flawed people doing their best with what they know. If kids are hearing the bad stuff from anti-Mormons and they trusted THEIR VALUES more than the parent's values when they're in conflict, then the parents FAILED IN TEACHING THEM HOW TO DISTINGUISH GOOD FROM BAD - another VALUE. A kid with "so much anger built up" because he hears bad stuff from anti-Mormons is another kid whose parents failed in teaching VALUES - Patience, Forgiveness, and Perseverance. And here's another failure - blaming somebody else for one's lack of values... is a lack of value. Yep. Two VALUES.

Interestingly, titanium is one of the most common elements in the earth's crust, more common than carbon. The only reason it's such an exotic and expensive metal is because the refining process is unbelievably complex, labor- and energy-intensive. This is the position aluminum was in a century or so ago, before the Bayer refining process was developed. Perhaps something similar will happen with titanium, and our grandchildren will drink their caffeinated, carbonated garbage from superthin titanium cans.

It is interesting to consider this when I think of the monument built to "The Hero of Saratoga".

This little mod's take on things: Asking a provocative question and then watching the ants run around is perfectly acceptable behavior. If we don't have good answers to the questions, we've got a problem. Keep the good relevant answers coming folks. Yes, it would be nice if it seemed like our answers were making a difference with the asker. But it's far more important that the answers make a difference with you.

So many ways to look at data. So many things I learned. I caught the COVID hype early on, when the data showed exponential growth. You get something possibly fatal that doubles every period of time (doubles every day, every week, every 3 weeks), and you absolutely have to do something to "flatten that curve". I made my own logarithmic chart, and saw the exponential growth with my own eyes. Look at that scary thing in the early days: (Blue line is my state, red line is my county, green line was what we could expect if we did nothing. That green line is where all the projections of overloaded hospitals and millions dead came from) So America shut down the economy in March, sent everyone home, and we flattened the curve. As long as we don't go back to logarithmic growth, we're ok to sit and argue about this or that increased or decreased number, and we (i.e. government) isn't going to take any specific additional actions to increase restrictions. We're all seeing how much we can relax restrictions slowly and wisely without going logarighmic. Since April, I haven't needed any logarithmic charts, just happy to see if things are a little better, or a little worse. This is sustainable until there's a vaccine (maybe this year or 2021), or there's herd immunity (2021/2022 at this low rate). So yeah, if we all drop our masks and head to bars and churches and indoor arenas, we'll go logarithmic again, and the govt will need to shut things down again. Here in phase two, "we" will be the county and state level, maybe the city level for bigger cities. So your "we" will be different than my "we". For the love of Pete, everyone needs this one fact crowbarred into their skulls: Your mask doesn't protect you. Your mask lowers the number of people you will infect, if you have COVID. I'll keep shouting it until I'm blue in the face: Let's say you want to spit on someone's face. If neither of you have masks, it's pretty easy. If your target has a mask, it's a little harder, but still likely, because wherever your stuff lands, your target will get it on his clothes, and his fingers, and his grandma in the nursing home. If you are wearing a mask, how easy is it to spit on someone's face?

It's also worse to be murdered than it is to be raped, but I've never heard that as an argument for going only after the murderers and letting the rapists go free.

I believe you. Sometimes though it's hard for me to wrap my head around. Most of the stuff that typically gets people upset (everything from polygamy to how Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon) I remember learning in seminary. Even the stuff I didn't learn about there (the Mountain Meadows Massacre for one) I learned more about by reading the Institute manuals on my mission and I don't consider myself especially different from anyone else in the church. The information is readily available from the church, so I've never understood how so many people seem to not find it. I will add though that I recognize my obsession with history helped me out here. I like researching things that puzzle me, so whenever it's happened I tend to go straight to the source. I won't judge someone who doesn't have that as a strength and I hope the missionaries you mentioned were able to find some peace in their lives.

Exactly. I’ve noticed that the youth and young adults in the Church who are in support of LGBQT, BLM, and socialist/communist ideas and policies have parents who are also passive on these issues. They don’t seem to take a firm stance on anything, or are on the wrong side of the issue. That’s not always the case, but it is a pattern.

Sorry thread jack real quick. Lincoln opposed slavery on a personal level for most of his life. You can find writings as far back as the 1840's mentioning his distate for the system. Lincoln, however, was also a strong believer in the Constitution. At the time, the Constitution gave him no authority to unilaterally end slavery. The quote he made was made at the start of the war, when he believed it would be short and when he had very little political support to end slavery. Ironically it was the rebels themselves who gave him the political capital to end slavery, and if you study his political decisions closely, you can see an almost undeviating course towards ending slavery, which he correctly believed had caused the war in the first place. First by compensated emancipation in the vital border states, then by freeing slaves held by the Confederacy, then by using all of his political clout to pass the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery right before his death. Here's a quote from him on the subject, less famous than his preserve the Union quote, but more relevant " "I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel. ... And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling." Rioters don't have the historical knowledge to understand this. All they see is "he said something that sounds bad from a 21st century perspective so he's bad". It's why I will never trust a mob to make an intelligent decision.

We were back in service for the first time this past week. Everyone had masks. Those on stage were allowed to take them off, since we had plexiglass partitions. Poor pastor wanted to come out into the audience so much---he always does--but refrained. We were model citizens and still able to worship. 😁

A parent doesn't have to teach his kids history. A parent NEEDS TO TEACH his kids good manners and right conduct which includes self-discipline, repentance, forgiveness, humility and charity among other Godly virtues. A parent doesn't need to know history himself. A child will learn history out of curiosity. "Nobody taught me this" - is a victimhood mentality. The attitude that it is somebody else's fault that I didn't know X - that is an indication of a lack of virtue. So yes, a parent can successfully parent even when such parent is illiterate if the parent successfully instills Godly virtues in his children, especially the virtue of humility - the acknowledgment that I don't know everything and, therefore, I can learn something from everybody else, living or dead, abolitionist or slave trader.

The problem with this issue is that it is such an emotional issue that EVERYONE wants justice -- for whichever side. But NO one knows which side should be punished. I don't remember the exact numbers, but only about 5% of cases proved that the man actually committed such a horrific crime. And only about 5% proved that the woman made it up. The other 90% of the time, we don't really know. That means that whether it was rape (a heinous crime) or false accusation (of a heinous crime -- making it, in my mind, a heinous crime in and of itself) a crime was committed. And 90% of the time, it goes unpunished either way. In fact, a little over 90%. Of the 5% that the man is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, they sometimes get light sentences or cut a deal or whatever -- but still is branded a sex offender for the rest of his life. Most of the 5% where the woman was found to have made it up, she often gets nothing, or just a slap on the wrist. I honestly don't know if anyone is qualified to answer the following question: Which is worse? To be a woman who was raped? Or to be a man who was very publicly & falsely accused of rape? If you don't think this is even close, consider that when a man is accused of rape, his life is forever altered. Many in college have their higher education halted, or even aborted entirely. Men lose their jobs and careers are ended. If I were so accused, my license would be taken away regardless of whether I was found guilty or not. I would never be able to work again. And what would happen to the woman in such cases? Nothing -- the vast majority of the time. As precious is the virtue of a woman and the right to control her body, the same is true of a man's reputation. Our character is what drives our lives. And while many things can be recovered from, this simply cannot be recovered from. Such is our society. I don't know the statistics on suicide rates among men accused of rape. But I imagine it would be extremely high. My uncle-in-law was so accused. His career was ended. And he has since considered suicide many times. He simply doesn't see a way out.

And I think that was really the issue. That's why I was hoping he'd say: And guess what? He did. I kinda like him. I think he made an honest mistake that was stoked by the political environment that we're all feeling right now. He was hurt. But in the end, he admitted his honest mistake, and he was appreciative of the show of solidarity from his fellow drivers. And if I were one of the fellow drivers, I'd be happy to say

With eggs and your frying pan. Try one of the copper coated or copper pans. I got one and it is excellent. I can fry whatever I want and it never sticks to the pan.

Yes. To be a little less laconic, yes I think there should ba a presumption of innocence at that level as well as at the criminal court level. Otherwise it would be just too easy for a malicious accuser to have his/her way. "Do what I say or I'll accuse you of raping me - and you know I'll be the one who'll be believed!" They say false accusation is very rare. Whether that's true or not I dont know, but if it is, I bet it's at least partly down to the opposition that accusers face. Only those with a real complaint suffer through it. Remove that opposition, and an important safeguard against false accusation is gone.

Okay, I get this. The debate respecting Title IX is over whether allegations of sexual misconduct—especially on college campuses—should be treated as other offenses in which the accused has the presumption of innocence or, as the Obama administration instituted: whether accusers should get the presumption of being truthful while the accused is treated as already guilty, and given no opportunity to defend himself, lest the victim be re-traumatized. I was arguing for the accused to retain the presumption of innocence. It sounds like you agree. Yes?

I have no expertise in this, but Carb's idea of work-hardening seems reasonable to me. Makes me wonder if the reason the titanium-skinned SR-71 didn't shatter in flight was because the extreme heat of flying at Mach 3 would anneal the titanium, preventing work-hardening.

That's easy. It's called grease. Seriously, the best frying pan for eggs and the like is a cast iron pan that has been properly seasoned at least once. Then be sure to spread a tablespoon of oil all around the pan each time you're getting ready to fry some eggs. Unfortunately, we can't put that on statues.

Wish they’d show a close-up of the knot. The way I learned to tie it, a hangman’s noose under tension will tighten up on whatever’s inside the loop. It looks cool, but it’s not a very functional knot to have on a pull-cord. I’d think a simple bowline would be preferable—the loop wouldn’t close up with every use. (Yeah, I know it was there for months before this guy was assigned to the garage. It just seems curious to me, that’s all.)

This is interesting. Nitric Acid? Or is the critical point of water just THAT corrosive on its own? Since I've never designed a submarine before, I was wondering what conditions would cause this to be the case. And I realized that it was beyond the stress levels that I usually work with. I believe that this is either a geometry based issue or a strain-hardening issue. Given that Russian sub continues to work for a time after the first crush depth, I'd conclude that it is a strain-hardening issue. Would that be correct?

Nobody likes admitting a mistake. If I were his friend, I'd just let him know,"Hey, it was a simple mistake that anyone could have made. It's ok. Just accept it and move on." Instead, he's being encouraged to go onto national news and proclaim that he was still right in being offended at... nothing. He should be wondering if Don Lemon is really his friend.

Sadly, true. I like this idea very much. It is certainly an improvement to the desecration and destruction happening now. Regardless, I doubt it would be well received by the radicals.

Call it lack of charity (which it probably is) but I don't have a lot of compassion for anyone who tries to separate a few verses of scripture from the rest and then draws totally erroneous conclusions from them. No one who has actually read the Book of Mormon could draw the conclusions found in the OP unless they had ulterior motives. And concerning those who chose to adopt the cancel culture reasonable explanations don't matter to them so why bother.

You are ok my friend. I also took some satisfaction watching Confederate statues removed throughout the South. I've always considered them traitors, who tried to destroy this country to maintain the horrific system of slavery. To be blunt they don't deserve to be honored. But I really hate mobs. I'm okay with statues of Robert E. Lee or Edward Colston being removed but I want it done through proper channels, otherwise we risk those mobs destroying monuments of people who do deserve to be honored like Ulysses S. Grant or John Newton.

I may well be digging a hole for myself, but here goes: I accept everything Vort says about the early LDS suffering at the hands of a mindless mob. That was totally wrong, and what's has been happening (to statues etc.) across the US and the UK is totally wrong too. Having said that, there are a lot of statues I would have been sadder to have seen dumped in the River Avon. Edward Colston waxed fat on the misery of thousands of black people, bought from African slave traders, shipped across the Atlantic under terrible conditions. Those who survived the voyages were sold as chattels in the New World, so that England could grow rich. Those slaves may not have been my ancestors (or even their neighbours) but they were human beings. Even compared to what happened to LDS in Ohio and Missouri, this has to count for something. Had it been John Newton I would have been deeply saddened: though once a slave trader, he repented and became an abolitionist. (He later wrote the hymn Amazing Grace; "how sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me".) Colston as far as I know stayed a slave-trader all his life. Sure, he did a lot of charitable work, but only for white people. If I had my way, that statue would still be on its plinth, so that the people of Bristol could decide democratically what was to be done with it. I'd suggest putting it in a museum, so people could still see and appreciate an important - though flawed - figure of Bristol's history. (That's actually what's happening btw, now the statue has been fished out of the water.) So please excuse me for taking a certain grim satisfaction in what happened. If Vort can be forgiven for lacking sympathy, I think I can be too for having a little too much.

The Dreame Or scorne, or pittie on me take, I must the true relation make, I am undone to-night! Love, in a subtile Dreame disguis'd Hath both my heart and me surpriz'd, Whom never yet he durst attempt t' awake; Nor will he tell me for whose sake He did me the delight, Or spight, But leaves me to inquire, In all my wild desire, Of sleepe againe; who was his aid. And sleepe, so guiltie and afraid, As since he dares not come within my sight! This gorgeous poem is little known to the general public, though most English-language-lover types have heard of it. It was featured in the wonderful 1995 film version of Sense and Sensibility, with Emma Thompson and Kate Winslet, as arranged by Patrick Doyle and sung so beautifully by the unmatched Jane Eaglen. Kate Winslet also sang it in the movie: (For the record, the scene above introduces the part where Edward returns, a tour de force of Emma Thompson's acting chops and certainly one of the most emotionally moving, and satisfying, scenes in all cinematography. I kid you not. You need to watch the movie to get the full effect. A worthy way to spend two hours and change.) Ben Jonson was a contemporary of William Shakespeare, and something of a rival to him. I wish more people in general know about Jonson. I wish I knew more about him, and were more familiar with his works. My favorite Ben Jonson poem is probably the same as yours, if you have a favorite Ben Jonson poem: On My First Sonne, which he wrote at the death of his seven-year-old son. On My First Sonne Farewell, thou child of my right hand, and joy; My sinne was too much hope of thee, lov’d boy, Seven yeeres thou’wert lent to me, and I thee pay, Exacted by thy fate, on the just day. O, could I lose all father, now. For why Will man lament the fate he should envíe? To have so soon scap’d worlds, and fleshes rage, And, if no other miserie, yet age? Rest in soft peace, and, ask’d, say here doth lye BEN. IONSON his best piece of poetrie. For whose sake, hence-forth, all his vowes be such, As what he loves may never like too much. I realize this isn't exactly everyone's cup of [herbal] tea, but some things are worth knowing. Ben Jonson's poems are some of those things.

Queolby does not engage in conversation, ever. Go back and check his posting history. He raises what he apparently sees as "controversial" topics, often disguised as "investigator questions" or "someone asked me this online," then sits back to enjoy the show. This thread continues that pattern. In my opinion, the mods should resolve this problem once and for all.

I have a co-worker that is a few years younger then me (late 30's). I walked by his office one day and saw he was on the local newspaper website. I asked him "oh, I didn't know you have a paid subscription to the newspaper!", he replied "I don't, I just glance at all the article headings!" This generation even more so is dealing with information overload and the way we teach our youth needs to adapt. Don't bash me for saying this but I get all my church history information from the Saints Unscripted you tube channel. Its short sweet and entertaining.

And I appreciate that. It's important to recognize that while we may not struggle with an issue others do, and try to reach out to them and point them in the direction of resources that answer their questions rather than just dismissing their concerns.

I was waiting for someone to bring me into this. But then again, I did post about this on facebook which you probably saw.

Shakes them to the core? That sounds a little dramatic. People in the Church who leave over things like that, do so as a way to justify their wanting to leave. These same type people also tend to stop going to church altogether, not just the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Either way, that’s why it’s important to have a testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel. When the Spirit testifies, it doesn’t matter what “facts” one can twist to try to make the Church look bad. People of today may not like what Brigham Young had to say back then, but it doesn’t make it any less true.

I remember Drumhead. I am embarrassed to say that if it were presented as a movement I were more amenable to supporting, I don't know if I'd be immune to it. I would probably go along with it. But the reason I'd consider myself more "sensible" is not because I'm immune to mob mentality. I believe it because the "mob" that I'd tend to side with is the side that would be consistent with my set of values. For instance: I don't understand how taking down statues of Abraham Lincoln (the man most responsible for ending slavery in America) would correlate with ending racial injustice. I don't know how protesting for racial equality would include ransacking small businesses owned by minorities. I don't know how Christians who believe a cult is growing too powerful would go about raping the cult's women to death and justify it as God's will.

Perhaps it was. This (cheering mobs destroying statues) is an example of precisely the kind of mobthink that I abhor so much, and that afflicts the American political Left to such a great degree. Those with insufficiently enlightened opinions must be silenced! Persecute the evil non-believers! Perhaps my ancestral memories of just this sort of mobocracy that resulted in the persecution, imprisonment, rape, and murder of my ancestors and their neighbors only a few generations back tends to make me all the more intolerant of those who willingly abdicate their minds and emotions just so they can signal their virtue as loudly as possible.

Hope you stay safe, mirk.

We're never gonna get anywhere here. The problem with this thread are those bolded statements above. Nobody was rude to you here - you made your own interpretation of their tone. I've been on this forum long enough to know the online persona of the people sharing with you their precious time. But, even if people respond rudely, we are not your children nor your patients here. You get what people give. They have lives of their own, their own sensitivities, their own personalities, their own cultures, their own reasons for the way they parse their statements. If you spend time long enough, you'll get to know the individual online personalities behind the avatar. You are also free to ignore them. Or you can report them to the mods if you so desire.

No, it is those who take responsibility for themselves and others that are tolerant of others' faults. Your wife did not take responsibility. That's one of the reasons she left the Church (you've told us her story in great detail). Too much responsibility. Any man who does the same will suffer from similar repercussions.

I have had a very recent struggle with this same issue, albeit from the other side of the spectrum. I had advised our bishopric to seek input from the general ward membership on what we could do to help each of them feel comfortable returning to church. Mixed in with the vast majority of thoughtful responses were a few "There's nothing you can do that will make me feel comfortable right now." and a few "people just need to stop being scared and take things back to normal." As you might expect, the "just stop being scared" comments triggered my thoughts of "what a blithering idiot." No sooner had I said that to myself than my mind was filled with this thought: For most of this month, I've been struggling with how to repent and be more charitable toward those with whom I disagree. It's hard. It's really, really hard for me. I don't have solutions. I don't think I've made any progress in my repentance. But know that you aren't alone in your feelings.

On sober reflection, my primary concern may be that the love of Vort is waxing cold. I have never in my life felt such disappointment and even disgust toward so many of my fellow Americans. I feel so drained that it's almost as if I have lost hope for society and just want to see the "other side" go their way while I and mine go ours. I want to care about my fellow man and mourn for the ignorance and hatred that blinds people. Perhaps if I could see my own fallen state better, I would be a lot more sympathetic and charitable toward those who vandalize businesses and chant stupid, meaningless, Orwellian slogans. As it is, I'm tired of putting up with their crap, and I just want them to go away.

When Mahonri Moriancumr asked Jesus what to do about the darkness in the barges the Lord responded with: Ether 2:23 And the Lord said unto the brother of Jared: What will ye that I should do that ye may have light in your vessels? I think that the Lord gives us problems that he wants us to work out and in many instances there is no right or wrong answer. Mahonri chose to get 16 stones of molten rock and have Christ touch them to light them. With God's power Mahonri could have asked for any variety of methods to light the barges, but God simply wanted Mahonri to think and act. It is also important to note that God gave Mahonri specific responses to how they would be guided on the sea and how to get fresh air. So sometimes God gives us direct instructions, other times he wants us to think and then ask him for confirmation. D&C: 58:26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is acompelled in all things, the same is a bslothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward. Our Prophets sometimes have to look at current situations, think for themselves, ask God for confirmation, and then move forward. With this being the case the phrase "Thus saith the Lord..." would be incorrect because the ideas came from the prophets themselves. It would be better to say "The Lord backs me up when I say...". As for the statements concerning the righteousness/valiance of the youth today - I think things are simply moving forward as prophesied. We know that in the last days the church will be small compared to the world - yet powerful. For every individual that falls away from the church there is another individual in the church whose strength is growing. There is opposition in all things. The individual who is the only active member in their family, friend group, town, city, or even country needs to be very strong indeed to move forward with faith when everyone around them is trying to bring them down. Based on my understanding of the parable of the 10 virgins, only half of the members of the church will be ready at Christ's second coming. So regardless of HOW the General Authorities are choosing to express themselves in their talks in General Conference or elsewhere, we should know that the WHAT and WHY are from God. Honestly I think if there was too much boldness or pulpit pounding it might be counterproductive. I think there is a time for all things. Christ taught differently depending on his audience. To some it was straightforward and bold, to some it was in parables, to some it was with intense power, and to some with gentle love. In the end the message was the same: Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and everyone who believes in him and obeys his gospel will be saved.

This is a great example of why such speculation is dangerous. If Elder Faust's nephew was wrong, either because he was lying or because he misunderstood his uncle, then what he said is worse than useless. On the other hand, if Elder Faust's nephew was right, and this really was a true doctrine that should not have been revealed because it's dangerous, then for sure what he said is worse than useless. See the common theme between the two possible answers? You think that those who forfeit their exaltation because of their love of the flesh are eternally worthless beings that God himself doesn't care about? That perfect people in a position of superiority would never condescend (real, original meaning) to minister to those beneath them? On the contrary, acting in that manner is the Godly thing to do, not some sign of eventual exaltation being extended to those served. I minister to my dog. That doesn't mean I think she'll grow up to be my child some day. She is what she is, and that is not going to change. That the heavens minister to us on earth says far more about the heavens than about us. I am guaranteed nothing merely by the fact that God offers me his gifts. The operative condition is whether I accept his gifts. And we are told that this life—not the eternities, but right now—is the time for us to prepare to meet God. We are told that after this day, the night comes wherein no work can be performed. The doctrine of "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die, and it shall be well with us" is from the evil one. Don't just take my word for it. This has all been laid out very clearly in scripture and by our leaders. For all those with eyes to see and ears to hear, it is trumpeted from the walls. Whispering about "kingdom progression" is vain and very foolish. Let us denounce it for the false doctrine that it is and move on to greater things.