Leaderboard

As I have read the Book of Mormon, I am convinced the Book of Mormon correctly identifies (is plainly taught) the purpose of the words used. True, cancel culture will (better said, already has) attacked the Book of Mormon with regards to its use of color. Anti-The Church of Jesus Christ, have been using this already to bludgeon the Church. When I seek to understand the plainness of speech (according to their personal weakness (i.e. Moroni is pretty clear)) I try to understand from three points: The Father's / Christ's point of view, the authors, and the Spirit of revelation. First, I don't think we should deny or try to interpret scripture according to our modern world view. Second, if we seek the view from the vantage point of our Father in Heaven (as he is no respecter of persons) the plainness is more clear. Third, God has clearly given us a Revelator who is able to plainly teach what is correct/true. The Book of Mormon is plain in that color is used figuratively and also literally. The fruit likened to our Savior is "white" and "most sweet." It shouldn't cause any alarm or issue unless someone wants to stir the pot as the Pharisees did with Christ. Christ was plain in speech, and yet the Pharisees would "seek" out opportunities to call out error where there is no error. We see that with the Book of Mormon today and post topics like this. From our Father in heaven's perspective, what is the easiest way to distinguish two brothers? At this time DNA wasn't known (at least from the records we currently have). What human sense then is the easiest and most plain way to separate two brothers where you can identify a son from one brother and a son from another? To change the hue of their skin. This isn't racist as they are the same race (also why I don't believe in many race, but one race -- human). From the Lord the Book of Mormon clearly teachers that that if the Nephites did not repent that the Lamanites skin would be whiter than yours as the time of judgement. I don't think anyone needs to apologize for an easily understood metaphor. This metaphor could even be used today as we know we have brothers who skin are darker, and who could easily be more "white" (obviously meaning clean and pure) than yours (whose skin is already lighter). This is also evidently a teaching that if you think you are better than someone due to the color of ones skin you are in the wrong, as God definitely looks to character. White is already a color that has been used to represent something that is clean and pure. Black represents something that is not clean and pure. We live in a day where all things are becoming a "compound in one," (no male or female, no right or wrong, no truth or error, etc...) and that is surely a scary thought. It even claims Mary was white and the nephites were white when he know that can't be. We don't know this can't be, that is an interpretation. My wife would tell me stories of about how tan she could get. I didn't believe her because since I have known her she can tan but never really dark. It wasn't until we were meeting with some of her friends and the first thing out of her friends mouth was, "Wow, I have never seen you so white." I had to chuckle a little because in comparison to me my wife isn't "white" and yet she was told she was white. The next thing was that she usually was as dark as a Native American. I then realized, well, I guess she has been telling me the truth. White is commonly used to describe a variety of color hues. So, yes, Mary easily could have been "white" and "exceedingly fair" while having darker skin (as my wife). It's amazing how I just used "white," "dark," "Native American," and "variety of color hues" to describe someone who is Caucasian. The opposite is also true. How easily it is then to use "white," "dark," and a "variety of color hues" to describe someone who is African American depending on how literal, figurative, or symbolic I want to be. I can tell you this, our new bishop is "fair" for someone of black ancestry. Imagine that.

There are different thoughts about what could or would happen. Different things HAVE happened in the past. One example is Argentina which had a situation similar. Bartering became a bigger item between people. Germany after WWII and right before Hitler took over (and one reason he was able to take over) is another example. Inflation was so terrible and horrible that money became useless. People would spend their life savings on a loaf of bread. Zimbabwe is probably one of the most recent examples with it's hyperinflation. This caused the money to have no worth. It had nothing to really back up it's worth or what the government was saying it was worth. Furthermore, in today's paper society (where currencies value is not so much based on hard values such as gold, but rather what people think it is worth), people did not trust that it could retain it's value (and it didn't) and so didn't see it worth anything. In these instances, the best bet is to invest in another currency, such as a foreign currency. The hope is that the foreign currency will actually hold it's value. In Zimbabwe you'd see people using foreign currency simply because it was more reliable than the national currency. In the instance that the US dollar fails...I'm not sure what would occur. The US dollar has a far wider impact than any other economy, and it's failure would reverberate around the world. It could be possible that almost ALL currencies fail in that instance, and most would be in serious trouble (as most nations have a paper society, rather than a gold or silver based one today). The best bet would be to try to find some foreign currency that is based on something else. If this currency was found by others in business, it probably would become the status quo currency to fall back on. The reason people cite keeping gold or silver is the expectation that they will retain value. A Gold Based economy/society has it's money (such as the dollar) based on that material. It is directly correlated. For example, if I had a currency and called it a Pound, and said each Pound is equal to a Pound of Silver...then your money actually has a direct correlated worth to something. Many societies in the past had their currency with a direct correlation. The US had this in the past with it's dollar tied to silver. So many silver dollars equaled a gold amount (it has varied, but one of the more popular forms was 20 silver dollars to a 20 dollar gold piece, though they also had 16 to 1 and other variations in the past if I recall of the top of my head). The fallacy of this is that gold and silver values are also superficial. In the case of a crash, if no one values gold, gold will have no value. If we go with foreign currency, it would be hoping that they are based off a gold or silver standard. If, instead, that economy is based on land (such as each dollar is based upon an amount of land) or other such backing, gold may not be worth as much as some think it will. In the instance of a US dollar crash, most likely it will cause the crash of currencies worldwide. It could be a trigger for the entirety of the paper backed systems to fall. Most of these were based on gold or silver in the past. There is still a superficial connection between them and gold and silver. If they fall, expect the value of gold and silver to fall as well, perhaps drastically. It could be that we go to a food backed currency (for example, in the past some societies based their money off the value of grain, such as wheat or rice. Money was directly correlated as worth to a bushel of wheat for example). In this instance, gold becomes largely useless, as you cannot eat gold (for example, though they had a lot of it, in the Americas before the Europeans came, it was not seen as valuable as Europe saw it). Thus, in answer to your question...it depends on how hard the crash was. In a total crash, the entire system of markets falls apart, which means you might not be able to go to the store and buy ground beef. You may have to hope that your local community and the farms in the local area have produce you can eat. Traveling abroad could be harder as American currency would not useful and you could not use it. No one would accept it perhaps, and you'd have to find another way to make your way.

Oh, we have a location to go too up in Montana. Family retreat.

When the debt is no longer sustainable likely it will result in American Bonds becoming worthless along with the complete loss of value of the American dollar. I have no clue of the timeline on when this will happen in the future. I do not think it will be an over night event though. It will very likely happen one small step at a time.

We aren’t really getting a “clearer perspective”, though; we’re getting politically convenient theories that ignore all the times that the BoM (let alone the Hebrew Bible) unambiguously and literally applied terms like “skin” (1 Ne 17:11, Enos 1:20, Mosiah 17:13, Alma 3:5, Alma 20:29, Alma 43:20, Alma 44:18, Alma 49:6, 3 Ne 4:7) and “black” (2 Ne 7:3). The scholars can only give us a “maybe”; and they ignore the fact that the one person in this dispensation who is known to have actually talked to Lehites and (if we believe Lucy Mack Smith) could describe “their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, and their buildings, with every particular; he would describe their mode of warfare, as also their religious worship . . . with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life with them”; took the passages in question quite literally. Agreed; and I hope my posts in this thread have not been interpreted as suggesting otherwise. I don’t disagree, in principle, with the idea that racism has left a legacy in modern America. From what I can see, there is disagreement (and scant evidence either way) regarding whether classical civilizations made much of skin-tone differences (as opposed to broader cultural/ethnic differences), or the degree to which they attributed these differences to deity. And even assuming arguendo that the roots of modern western racism arose only in the 16th century (making Shakespeare’s “Othello” very avante garde), that says nothing about what God did or didn’t do with past, now-extinct civilizations; or the way those civilizations interpreted His actions. The Book of Mormon does speak to both of those issues. Assuming that the Book of Mormon doesn’t mean what it says, just because we have little or no scholastic confirmation thereof and just because something it says makes us uncomfortable; sort of defeats the purpose of having the Book of Mormon at all. Indeed; and as I note above, their research is a lot weaker, much less comprehensive, and far less conclusive than they’d like you to believe. But my dear fellow, even if you are uninterested in the motivations of the intelligentsia; you can rest assured that the self-proclaimed intelligentsia are very much interested in your motivations. Try to argue with them a literal change in skin color amongst the Lehites, or—better yet—argue that the Church’s priesthood ban had divine precedent and/or approval. See how long they can go without resorting to ad hominem. Make those arguments under your own name, and see how long it is before your employer gets an email: “Hey, that CV75 fellow is actually a crypto-racist; and you don’t want a crypto-racist working for you--do you?" I think it's well past time for a little turnabout. With the vast majority of these scholars, there’s a very clear progression here: 1) The Book of Mormon doesn’t really talk about any sort of divine race-based exclusion. 2) There is no divine precedent for a race-based exclusion. 3) The Church’s priesthood ban was a man-made usurpation, not a divinely-instituted policy. 4) Other Church, current policies are theoretically man-made usurpations borne of prejudice, not divinely-instituted policies. 5) The Church’s policies regarding—say—the law of chastity, or priesthood ordination eligibility, are also man-made usurpations borne of prejudice and not divinely-instituted policies. If these “scholars” want me to trust their integrity, then I’d like to hear them say “shibboleth” first. Let’s have them publicly post, under their own names, one of the following statements: “I accept whole-heartedly and without reservation, every word of the Proclamation on the Family.” “Children are most likely to succeed in a home headed by a father and a mother who are married to each other.” “Sex outside of marriage, and gay sex in any circumstances, are always sinful.” “God’s plan does not allow for gay sealings.” “I support the Church’s exclusion of women from the priesthood unless or until the prophet gets a revelation to the contrary.” Offhand I can think of maybe a dozen "scholars" who argue against a literal Lamanite skin change. I can only think of two of those who I believe would publicly agree with (more softly-worded versions of) the bulleted statements above--and perhaps coincidentally, they are probably the most open-minded and ambiguous in their writings questioning a literal skin-tone change. Again—I agree with you; and I hope I haven’t created any impression to the contrary.

I am wondering though how much debt our country can continue to take on. Current United States national debt is close to $26,600,000,000,000 (26.6 trillion) today. At some point in the future the debt bubble will explode. When it does it will cause great financial ruin. It could be many years from now but it will happen if Congress and the President do not restrain financial spending.

Well, considering the short list he was supposed to be considering, she's probably more towards the middle and less extreme than some that he was choosing. If he is elected, many probably expect she will become the main voice (if not president) at some point in the next four years. She also is a big draw for minorities which Biden cannot accomplish himself.

After receiving my endowment and prior to leaving on my mission I was invited by a friend to the Salt Lake Temple where we performed proxy baptisms and confirmations for individuals who had been excommunicated then passed away prior to rebaptism. As part of the confirmation there was also a restoration of priesthood and temple blessings performed. As such, the proxy had to have been endowed. I don't recall if there was mention of sealings, however. My impression was that the individuals were restored to the status of their ordinances prior to their excommunication. I'm afraid I don't know what the process was to get the names of the individuals ready for the proxy work. We showed up and worked for names provided to us by whomever was running the show. I also did not have this question come up while I was serving as bishop so never researched it. With the General Handbook of Instructions now open to all, perhaps there are details contained therein that could answer the questions you ask. My understanding also is that the excommunication of the father does nothing to impact the covenants and blessings from those covenants entered into by the spouse (assuming she remains true to her covenants) or the children born in the covenant. They are still born in the covenant regardless of what their parents do later in life. This ties to our second Article of Faith. As for the question of what happens in the hear after, I take comfort from my faith that our Heavenly Father will get it all worked as is appropriate. My capacity for understanding at this point makes it a useless exercise to try to figure out all the intricacies and variations that may result from our imperfect lives and decisions.

I was under the impression that he would need to be baptized by proxy, but I could be wrong. Then he would have his blessings restored. I’ll see if I can find any information on this. Children do not lose the blessing of being born in the covenant when a parent/s is excommunicated. Also, when parent’s have their sealing canceled, the children retain their blessing of being born in the covenant.

Could the Nephites have been "racist" in their views of the Lamanites? Well, yes it is quite plausible but I lean towards ethnocentrism. Having said that, I cannot get over the "white and exceedingly fair" when talking about Hebrews...

https://www.history.com/topics/colonial-america/salem-witch-trials

I know people that can find white supremacy in this: "For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them ball to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile."

In many other nations they actually did contact tracing at the beginning and were able to isolate. In addition, no one rebelled and proclaimed it against their rights when told to wear a mask, social distance, and to avoid going out for unnecessary items. It's amazing what an iota of prevention can do... That does not mean it's over for them yet, just that thus far, they have managed to keep it from blowing up to levels that the US and other nations which did not practice safe practices have.

Because of your age I feel like the person you need to talk to is your parents and your bishop. Providing advice to a teenager on such a sensitive subject from random people on the internet probably isn't the most appropriate of things.

Not only is it IN the handbook that anyone 31+ would switch from the YSA ward - BUT in fairness to all the others, they have an expectation that their peers in the ward are all similar ages of 18-30. I personally would have zero problems telling this woman "Hey, you know when I suggested the YSA ward? Well I had no idea you weren't in the 18-30 age group! I know, right? You look really awesome. But, I'm really sorry for suggesting it because obviously, you really shouldn't be going to the YSA ward, it IS for those 18-30 year olds. Sorry I messed up with my suggestion but it was in a good way! That's quite the compliment!" And then bow out of helping with rides or anything else....

@dddd It's always interesting to me how sometimes we can differ from the majority in our opinions, and I do in this case. As a former High Councilor that had responsibility for working with the YSA and Single Adult programs in a stake, I think it was always an important responsibility for everyone involved to help maintain the Church designated age and divorce policy restrictions. Of course you can't force her to stop attending, but neither can the Bishop without calling police officers to remove her. Rather than expecting the Bishop to take care of all the "dirty work" which really isn't dirty work at all, I'm glad you attempted to help the Bishop out by lovingly suggesting to her that the ward is actually intended for those 18-30. If more help is needed, you can ask the High Councilor over the YSA ward, or other Senior couples who may be called to help the YSA ward, or by referring the matter to the Relief Society President or Elder's Quorum President. Handbook 2 is pretty clear: "Membership in a young single adult ward is temporary. Leaders help young single adults prepare to return to a conventional ward when they marry or reach age 31." The age and divorce restrictions are wise church policies based on many years of experience. YSA wards change constantly and the Bishop does not have the time to evaluate and police all these matters himself. The members need to help self-police the policies similar to how the youth help maintain the church standards at church dances. It is always more effective for youth to caution other youth rather than leaders or adults. At a minimum, I suggest you gently and lovingly decline to offer her future rides and be straightforward and honest why - because she shouldn't be attending the YSA ward. She may find another ride and attend, and you can still greet her warmly when she does. But I think she will respect you for doing what you know to be right. People say you avoid a ton of drama when you don't tell people the truth, but in my experience that's not correct. You simply create more drama and shift it to someone else who has to deal with it all eventually. I think that's why I loved living on the East Coast (New Jersey), people were straight up with no hidden agendas. Blunt and honest was a refreshing change from my West Coast upbringing. As for membership records, the Church does not typically move YSA records into the YSA ward in local stakes so that may not even be an issue. They do when you go off to college or something similar and then attend a YSA ward. In any case, as one who had the opportunity to ask many people to attend their proper YSA, SA, and home wards (or not to attend at all until after their divorces were final) I respect that I'm in the minority on this one and wish you luck!

I'm not sure if you have this kind of slang in the US, but from my reading of these posts, it appears that somebody is being taken for a ride.