Leaderboard

I get that we’re being given so much bad data that it’s easy to sink into a sort of nihilism. That said, @Colirio—you sort of lose me when you suggest that a vaccine has to be 100% effective in every single individual who receives it. No vaccine is 100% effective; pre-COVID, I think most educated people understood that. That’s where this notion of “herd immunity” comes in. If a person sets up a sort of unattainable straw man regarding what “effectiveness” has to look like, it makes me wonder whether the person is arguing from an unacknowledged predisposition that leads them to want the vaccine to be judged “ineffective”. If I may be a bit blunt: Your most recent response also leads me to wonder whether you took the time to see what the data in @NeuroTypical’s graphs was really showing. They don’t show declines in hospitalizations or deaths over time; they show who’s in the hospital now. Who’s dying now. And by a staggering proportion—it’s the unvaccinated. I don’t mean to suggest that the statistics are scripture. Certainly with regard to ascertaining cause-of-death, there has been some slipperiness; some of it unintentional and some of it . . . not. But it’s relatively easy to know whether a COVID victim has been vaccinated or not; this particular dataset is not particularly difficult to define or collate. And FWIW: my brother is the controller for a regional network of hospitals on the west coast. He is strongly conservative and pretty disgusted at all the leftist milking and melodrama over COVID-19. But he adamantly insists that the numbers being reported by his institution are being compiled and relayed in good faith. The sort of conspiracy it would take to manipulate the sort of data NT has presented here and to keep it all secret would be absolutely monumental; and speaking as a government bureaucrat myself—we are neither smart enough nor competent enough to pull off something like that. FWIW, I also know a few in-the-trenches health care workers, including a couple who chose not to take the vaccine themselves. They uniformly acknowledge that it is “effective” in the clinical sense of the word; they have simply taken the calculated risk that given their young ages and fit physical conditions, they would statistically be better off contracting COVID than getting a vaccine whose clinical test results are still coming in and whose side effects can be pretty rough. That’s a fair position to take. But if we’re looking at “hospital workers” as a source of scientific authority—we need to recognize that many of these folks are twentysomething recent college grads who (think they) aren’t particularly vulnerable to COVID, or support workers/CNAs/janitors/cafeteria workers who are often ethnic minorities and have the Tuskegee experiments or other general mistrust of “white” institutions fresh in their minds. I’m not particularly interested in the scientific deductive reasoning of Bedpan Brittany. But I am very interested in a recent poll indicating that 96% of practicing physicians have chosen to become fully vaccinated.

I won't quote this to you, as I know you're well familiar, but I will quote it here for anyone reading along for consideration: "No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile" It strikes me, accordingly, that the responsibility and attitude of who presides in the home is squarely on the shoulders of those being presided over. 'Tis true, the rhetoric has been shaped so as to to not offend the weak among us. But those who know and understand know and understand. The authority of a father in his home is not ceremonial. But neither is is taken by the father as an act of dominance. It is given by way of respect when the father exercises his priesthood by persuasion, gentleness, meekness, etc.

Indeed we have data for that NOW.. We did not have that when we started... as for the cost.. we still do not know if there are any long term negative impacts and might make it in retrospect a bad idea no matter how 'effective' it is. (Thanks for being the experimental lab monkey on that one btw) Yet from the beginning those people who recognized there was not enough data, and have concerns about possible long term effects were labeled anti-vaxers, and had the social media platforms censor and remove their content expressing this. And when you have organizations doing such a hard core suppression it becomes natural to wonder what are they trying to hide.

I’m not sure where I said that. I only submitted that there are unanswered questions. This is the single statement I was referring to and why I asked the questions that I did. There are (unanswered) questions concerning it’s effectiveness. I’m not even stating that it’s not effective. I simply pointed out that logic alone raises these questions, so why can there not be any voice raised against it? Counsel, I believe you are in the wrong courtroom. (Or maybe I am?) The conspiracy theorist discussion is being had with other people, not me.

It seems to me like nowadays, to the extent that we talk about the priesthood-holder “presiding” in the home at all, we almost sound embarrassed about it and hasten to add that “of course, it should be an equal partnership . . . ”. Yes, you want a healthy marriage characterized by listening and respect; but in any partnership there has to be a functional “final decider”—someone with veto power, if nothing else—and my sense (amongst my general acquaintance, at least) is that in most modern LDS marriages it is the wife, not the husband, who wields the unilateral power to say “our family is not going to do x because I don’t want to do it, period.”

My understanding as of yet: I grew up thinking that first, a man gets the authority of the priesthood, and later then gets the power of the priesthood if he is righteous. But today I understand that authority and power are two completely separate things. Power is found in being true to the covenants we make and its primary role is to bless those that are obedient. Authority is found in the laying on of hands and its primary (and perhaps sole) job is to administer those covenants that provide those blessings to the obedient. This means that the power of the priesthood is accessible to women, but not the authority. Having the authority of the priesthood does not provide you any additional power in the priesthood, rather just allows you to administer the ordinances that provide power for others. My questions: - Can one say that there are no blessings missed out on when a priesthood holder is not in a home? - Is the sole purpose of the priesthood authority purely just administering ordinances? - If there is no man in the home, is there really no priesthood in the home? - I have heard many times that in situations where a worthy priesthood holder is not present, the prayer of faith can have the same effect on healing the sick. If this is true, what is the purpose of blessing the sick and afflicted if a priesthood blessing isn't necessary? If the sole purpose of the authority of the priesthood is to administer ordinances for others to be obedient to, how do we look at blessings of comfort and counsel and blessing the sick and afflicted? No covenant is made there. What additional benefit does a blessing have that prayer does not? Is it just providing specific counsel from God? (Perhaps my premise is wrong or incomplete, that the solar purpose is for administering)

"There is no 'conspiracy theory' in the Book of Mormon. It is a conspiracy fact." (Ezra Taft Benson) From the Introduction of the Book of Mormon: From President Ezra Taft Benson in a General Conference address: When the Book of Mormon was abridged, Mormon took those things he thought/was inspired, as most profitable to us. This includes the book of Ether. The heading for Ether 8: The chapter tells us the story of Akish and his rise to power using murder and Secret Combinations. Moroni proceeds to tell us about the horrors of Secret Combinations. In verses 23-26 he is speaking to us. The modern church members. Take particular note of verse 24. From the Introduction of the Book of Mormon: From President Ezra Taft Benson in a General Conference address: When the Book of Mormon was abridged, Mormon took those things he thought/was inspired, as most profitable to us. This includes the book of Ether. The heading for Ether 8:  The chapter tells us the story of Akish and his rise to power using murder and Secret Combinations. Moroni proceeds to tell us about the horrors of Secret Combinations. In verses 23-26 he is speaking to us. The modern church members. Take particular note of verse 24.  It dumbfounds me the lengths members of the LDS church will go to write off the dangers of modern SC's in our world.

And one of my favorite TV shows of all time? The X-Files.

👍

Can one say that there are no blessings missed out on when a priesthood holder is not in a home? No. If there wasn't anything to the sons of God receiving the priesthood then the Lord wouldn't command it. There must be something that is received, unseen/unknown, with the priesthood in the home presiding that otherwise is not there. Otherwise the priesthood is simply an ornament, and we know it isn't. Is the sole purpose of the priesthood authority purely just administering ordinances? No. Priesthood also hold the keys and responsibilities for administration and ministering duties. The Church organization and all that it encompasses is accomplished through the priesthood. Without the priesthood -- as you already know -- ordinances aren't valid so that is important. If there is no man in the home, is there really no priesthood in the home? Yes, as in their isn't a priesthood holder who holds the priesthood; however, the priesthood is also not the man. I find it important that the Lord tells us if we are sick to call the Elders, which then correlates with not having the priesthood -- one who holds the authority and has been ordained -- in the home. Priesthood "power" though can still be in the home. I have heard many times that in situations where a worthy priesthood holder is not present, the prayer of faith can have the same effect on healing the sick. This is accurate, but with caution a caveats (when the priesthood is not available and not around). I know of a lady who believed she could bless her children -- laying on of hands -- by her husband's priesthood. Actually give a blessing through her husband's priesthood/ordination. When we can call upon the priesthood body and choose not to we enter in the realm of pride, because the Lord himself has commanded us to call upon his Elders. The easiest example is a widower or a single mother. If a woman is in an area where the priesthood body is not available or around she can exercise faith in the priesthood and call upon the Lord. This is the Lord's grace and mercy through our faith. If this is true, what is the purpose of blessing the sick and afflicted if a priesthood blessing isn't necessary? Refer to answer #3, if there is no man in the home. In this case though "isn't necessary" isn't the correct term. The priesthood is necessary otherwise the sons of God wouldn't be commanded to receive the Oath and Covenant of the priesthood. If we are in a position where we can't, then the Lord is merciful. Very similar to an anointing for the sick and afflicted. The anointing requires two individuals, and that is the way it should be done. But if there is only one present, there is understanding that the one individual can move forward and do both. Does this mean because we can perform this blessing with one person that two isn't necessary. No. We still seek to have two. If the sole purpose of the authority of the priesthood is to administer ordinances for others to be obedient to, how do we look at blessings of comfort and counsel and blessing the sick and afflicted? It isn't the sole purpose of priesthood authority. There are many functions to the priesthood, one of which is presiding. The second part answered above already. What additional benefit does a blessing have that prayer does not? Is it just providing specific counsel from God? I think this is a great question, and I think this is one where our faith is required. We do not know, and we do not see, but we exercise faith in God's words and his commandments. There must be something -- yet to be known that is true -- as to why the priesthood is necessary for God's kingdom to run and to be on the earth. So in reality the greatest benefit is obedience to God. This is the way he commanded it. We are also informed that the "power of God" is manifest through his ordinances. So, this tells us there is some additional, some benefit, that otherwise would not be there if we simply prayed or did not have. My mind draws me back to this scripture, "For by the water ye keep the commandment; by the Spirit ye are justified, and by the blood ye are sanctified;" These three aren't possible without the priesthood -- as we are given and to the knowledge we currently have.

While I realize some people use such one offs to push there agenda, I am not one of them.. my only agenda is to protect me an mine as best I can. Now if a majority of your group end up dying from breakthrough COVID, or shingles or elective scar revision, then I would be concerned (and more then a little confused by that last one). I wish the more main stream media shared your restraint.

I’m relating it to the notion that a good percentage of the impoverished black communities in America buy in to the idea that their only way out of the ghetto is by sports or a career in rap, and they simply spend more time practicing and playing ball than others based on limited options. Similar to what @Fether was suggesting earlier. Not my favorite theory, but it makes more sense to me than the superior genetics argument.

Honestly, I agree with you more than I disagree with you here. I'm not a fan of shouting down others or stifling public debate or free speech or anything like that. So forgive me if my energetic audaciousness on the topic of vaccine efficiency came across as trying to silence anyone. Maybe this will help: Vaccine efficiency is hardly the only thing to consider, nor is it the only goal. Not all efficient things are worthy or good. For example - killing everyone is a far more efficient way of keeping people from getting COVID, because you can't catch a disease when you're dead. Or a more plausible example: Quarantines, isolation, closing businesses, and public health orders, may be effective in slowing the spread. But one must measure the cost in increased suicides/domestic abuse/divorce/economic harm/adult onset diabetes/heart conditions/etc that are brought on by such things. Without that measure, one cannot be certain the shutdowns are worth the harm they cause. I'm very glad to hear that. Because it really does seem blindingly overwhelmingly obvious that measured in terms of hospitalizations and deaths, the vaccine is hugely effective. I haven't seen the slightest hint of a worthy response to that obvious fact, and I'm glad to hear that what you have been saying wasn't arguing against the effectiveness. I don't wanna dismiss any discussion.

Yes. The agenda is that there are unanswered questions regarding the effectiveness of the vaccine. There is a concerted effort on social media to silence any opposing discussion and the “definitive” statement NT made closely aligns with such silencing. Why would I? It was beside the point I was making. I wasn’t arguing whether or not the vaccine is effective. My POINT is that dismissing discussion as to its effectiveness is rather silly when even logic alone raises questions about it. It seems you are wanting me to have a debate here and wanting me to take the side of the anti-vaxxers. ❓ No thanks….

To be fair, some people don’t know their questions are loaded. Ie, if I don’t swim in the culture or haven’t been raised LDS, I’m simply not aware of what questions are sensitive or loaded. I’m speaking from personal experience here. Also, by labeling questions as “loaded” or questioning the askers intentions, it shows how you feel. It’s pretty defensive.

I’m not sure how to help. Just don’t do the same as me, and that is to try and sweep everything under the rug. I’ve had some real trials and struggles the last 40 years. I always pretended everything was fine, and I acted as though everything was fine, but deep inside of me, I was hurting and barely holding on. I had a break down over the issues about 10 years ago. It really frightened my husband. I finally opened up and started talking. My poor husband has become my sounding board, even though he is part of my problems (not all of them.) My struggles and trials haven’t gone away, but it helps that I don’t bottle it up inside of me. I would probably benefit from talking to a counselor, and I did have a few sessions with one, until it was no longer covered financially. Talking has helped me, but the specific trials I have will never be able to be resolved. I just need better coping skills in order to survive with some semblance of acceptance and happiness.

Once could argue that ALL we do in God's name is 'salvific'. Because it is. But that, I believe, misses my point. But...no...by definition, healing the sick is not a saving ordinance. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/true-to-the-faith/ordinances?lang=eng (Edit: the definition of a "saving ordinance" is one that is required for exaltation.) (Edit 2: I realize that by putting the "saving" in quotes at the end there that you're playing semantics. But that's actually, I think, detrimental to clarity. When we talk of saving ordinances in the church it has a specific meaning.)

It is still correct that a man’s priesthood power in his priesthood office requires his righteousness. He cannot have a priesthood office until he is ordained. He can have priesthood power prior to ordination in the several ways recently described in the August Liahona, just as children and women can have priesthood power in their faith, sustaining, ordinances, callings and assignments. - Can one say that there are no blessings missed out on when a priesthood holder is not in a home? Yes, but it requires faith on the part of the household members to access these blessings from someone other than a family member. Of course, having a priesthood holder in the home is a blessing.  - Is the sole purpose of the priesthood authority purely just administering ordinances? It is to do whatever is delegated under the various keys. Most of these involve ordinances, and all are connected to ordinances in some fashion.  - If there is no man in the home, is there really no priesthood in the home? Semantics. There may be no priesthood holder. There may be no faith to access priesthood power. On the other hand, there may be a single sister keeping her covenants with or without children doing the same. There may be a yet-unordained brother doing the same. - I have heard many times that in situations where a worthy priesthood holder is not present, the prayer of faith can have the same effect on healing the sick. If this is true, what is the purpose of blessing the sick and afflicted if a priesthood blessing isn't necessary? Doing all we can to access the Lord’s grace under the terms He has set: either a priesthood blessing or the prayer of faith (and isn’t it most proper to do both simultaneously anyway?) are necessary depending on the circumstances. If the sole purpose of the authority of the priesthood is to administer ordinances for others to be obedient to, how do we look at blessings of comfort and counsel and blessing the sick and afflicted? There are ways for the faithful to be obedient to the blessing for the sick. This is between them and the Lord, and why we have the Gift of the Holy Ghost. There are also ways for priesthood power to access the Lord's grace in behalf of those who cannot act. All is subject to the Lord's will, so much of this is part of the progression of aligning us individually and collectively with the Lord. No covenant is made there. It falls under existing covenants. What additional benefit does a blessing have that prayer does not? It is part of what the Lord expects us to do in doing all we can do to access His grace, given our circumstances. Is it just providing specific counsel from God? No.

Yes. Go ask any hospital or morgue, anywhere in the country, about who is getting hospitalized or dying because of COVID. They'll tell you it's pretty much only the unvaccinated people. Vaccinated people being treated for COVID are almost nonexistent in hospitals or morgues. For example: COVID-19 Vaccine Breakthrough Cases: Data from the States-kff.org Take a look at the Figure 2 chart: Deaths: Hospitalizations: Other sources: https://www.texastribune.org/2021/07/21/coronavirus-texas-vaccinated-deaths/ - Texas has seen nearly 9,000 COVID-19 deaths since February. All but 43 were unvaccinated people. https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-941fcf43d9731c76c16e7354f5d5e187 - Nearly all COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. now are in people who weren’t vaccinated, a staggering demonstration of how effective the shots have been and an indication that deaths per day — now down to under 300 — could be practically zero if everyone eligible got the vaccine. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/breakthrough-cases.html - "As of July 26, 2021, more than 163 million people in the United States had been fully vaccinated against COVID-19. During the same time, CDC received reports from 49 U.S. states and territories of 6,587 patients with COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infection who were hospitalized or died." That's 0.004%. Compared to US unvaccinated deaths ranging from hundreds to thousands per day, and the conclusion is pretty obvious. The only way someone can deny the overwhelmingly, steamrollingly obvious truth about the vaccine's effectiveness, is to start saying stuff like "The Texas Tribune has teamed up with the AP and the CDC, and every single hospital director in the US too, to lie to us about the truth". In other words, it puts you on the same level as the flat earthers. I totally get just abstaining from any news or source, and automatically disbelieve everything. Healthy skepticism is a good thing. But if you expect to have a valid voice on a subject, "I stick my fingers in my ears and yell lalalala because everyone is lying" isn't a very persuasive place to start. Am I wrong?

Whereas this is obviously true, it's somewhat like saying, "It is ALWAYS better to be in good health than in bad health." Or, "It is ALWAYS better to have electricity in the home." These things are self evident. But....they are also eternally less relevant. I think that's the important thing to understand. It is always better to have a worthy Priesthood holder as a leader in the home, but...if one does not, when we stand before God on judgment day, we will account for ourselves and what we did with that which was given to us. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude, I believe, that when we don't have the ideal, we are eternally, nonetheless, on equal footing. Whenever there is a discussion of Priesthood power or purpose in church the discussion almost always turns to blessing the sick or giving father's blessings or the like. Just so we're clear, the following is not shouting at you (I know you know this, but for other's reading so it's clear), but simply shouting my own frustration as a general statement... (and I'll also clarify that I know YOU know this, so I'm not lecturing at you...just riffing off the topic at hand)........... THOSE AREN'T SAVING ORDINANCES!!! One could go their whole life and never have a Priesthood blessing when they're sick or a father's blessing when they start school and it wouldn't really matter all that much in the grand scheme of things. These things are blessing to us from God, and they are advantages in the same way any blessing is. But they aren't the true purpose and power of the Priesthood. Sickness and sorrow are part of the mortal condition. It is truly wonderful that sometimes we can alleviate these things by the power of the Priesthood. But we will, nonetheless, continue on in sickness and sorrow until we die, because that's mortal life. But if we don't have the saving ordinances and the sealing power then we are all doomed. If one does not have a worthy Priesthood holder leading in their home then it is another state of sorrow and sickness that isn't the ideal. True. But it is not "the" difference, (unless one is in that state by choice of wickedness without repentance, of course) as all this will be rectified if we have sufficiently humbled ourselves and chosen and followed Christ.

How do you figure?

I keep hearing people talk about America being "stolen land." Almost all countries have the same history. Someone else conquered the people and took the land and made the other people subject to them. Those other peoples also probably "stole the land" from another people in the past. No America is not an evil country because someone else took the land from another people. And no I do not believe in giving all the land in the United States back to Native Americans. We need to find other solutions to our current problems rather than blaming the bad "white settlers" of the past.

I'm trying to figure out how this applies to the performance of Americans of African vs European descent? Do African-Americans have an inherited culture of running more often and for longer distances? I'm definitely no geneticist, but I have two sons that we've had to get some genetic tests done for. My impression is that there is still a whole lot that we don't understand about how they work, particularly when multiple genes are involved. I wonder about his conclusion that because they didn't find a genetic reason means that there isn't one. I do agree that the other factors he talks about, MVA, etc, contribute to the improved athlete's performance. I'm just not convinced we can write genetics out completely.

@Anddenex I'll spare you having to watch the whole video and give you the cliff notes - no scientific evidence that black people have superior physical genetics, Ted talk researcher concludes Africans have the fastest running times due to the higher physical activity and conditioning that comes with it from living in Africa.

This is an excellent point. I'm no vaccine hater—in fact, I and my entire family got vaccinated a couple of months ago—but when the information sources themselves prove biased and unreliable, you can't trust anything they say. At the very least, you have to look over the extensive data set and do the math yourself, which most people are not qualified to do. Even then, you still have to depend that (a) the numbers they report are accurate, (b) they have not fudged the numbers by counting edge cases or blatant false counting (such as the many anecdotes of mom's death by heart attack or falling off the porch being chalked up to COVID), and (c) there are no deep systematic errors in generating the numbers. No. The media have proved themselves entirely and utterly unreliable. The government itself and its officials are not leaders, but cheerleaders. My own uninformed opinion is that the preponderance of evidence suggests that the vaccines are probably effective. But if you reject the sources of information as biased—which is true beyond any possible doubt—then you might well arrive at the opposite conclusion, and only a fanatic in deep denial of what has been happening for years before our very eyes will scold you or call you names.

Like Orr, Fauci is a rock star to many and a scientific demi-god to some. More and more Covid-19 looks to have come from the Wuhan Lab in China, the same lab Fauci helped fund. Rather than the Covid savior the media wishes him to be, he more likely played a role as the harbinger of death. The walls are closing down on him as his gain of function 'scheme' has more and more light cast upon it each day. Fauci has a deep vested interest to cover his own butt at this point.

Great question. Pretty sure I purchase everything in the home. Ownership is probably a legal question. The covenants that we partake of require that we be honest in our dealings with our fellow men (including family and parents). I think common decency also falls under honesty. I don't have a problem if a child borrows the car and brings it back on 1/4 tank and says thanks with sincerity. But If you float the truck in on fumes and don't have an explanation. I will probably be fuming too. I don't have to see someone's temple recommendation or view their church attendance to judge if they are honest. I can usually figure it out with a short conversation and some observation. I'm pretty sure that our Savior is an excellent judge of character.

I expect someone that has studied for a decade and puts themself out as the world's leading expert of something to have a much better record and more open about their connection to research (including research in China) - especially testifying under oath before congress - not to be so animate over definitions of terms and give clear and correct responses. Millions of died because he was wrong in the beginning; concerning the method of transmission - like I said - about a virus he has been studying and claiming to be expert, overseeing and funding for years. At least he ought to be more open to other opinions - especially since he has been so wrong so many times. I would expect to be fired if I had made even a portion of the mistakes he has for something so critical. The Traveler

Perhaps tangential; but re women and priesthood authority, President Oaks states the following: We are not accustomed to speaking of women having the authority of the priesthood in their Church callings, but what other authority can it be? When a woman—young or old—is set apart to preach the gospel as a full-time missionary, she is given priesthood authority to perform a priesthood function. The same is true when a woman is set apart to function as an officer or teacher in a Church organization under the direction of one who holds the keys of the priesthood. Whoever functions in an office or calling received from one who holds priesthood keys exercises priesthood authority in performing her or his assigned duties. As to your specific questions, my own responses would be as follows: 1. This feels like a semantical question to me. What are we considering a “blessing”? Sure, through ministers visiting her home, a single woman can obtain the same comforting liturgical rites that a woman who is married to a priesthood holder can. But the married woman inherently has better access to a priesthood holder who can administer those rites almost immediately; whereas the single woman will have to do some extra work to make the logistical arrangements to get a priesthood holder out to her house. Does the married woman’s superior access to a priesthood holder constitute a “blessing” in its own right? If so, then the answer to your question must be “no”. It has become fashionable in the Church of late, to suggest that we are all blessed more or less “equally”; but I think this narrative starts to unravel on closer inspection. To my mind we are not blessed equally in this life, and that’s part of the plan (parable of the talents and whatnot). 2. Per the fifth article of faith, “priesthood” entails administering ordinances and preaching the gospel. I think “priesthood” has also been understood to entail some measure of “presiding” authority; though my sense is that recent discourse renders much of this “authority” largely ceremonial in nature as it pertains to the family sphere. And priesthood ministers constitute an independent source of revelation. 3. This, again, feels more like a semantical question. What does “priesthood in the home” even mean? Individuals who hold the priesthood? People who are not ordained to the priesthood but are participants in covenants made through priesthood authority? Something else? 4. It is my belief that anointings of the sick, and blessings of comfort/counsel, have two manifestations of “healing” power—physical and spiritual. With the physical component—yes, in a pinch, a mighty prayer can be just as effective (although the instruction the Church has been given, from New Testament times onward, has been to send for the elders). But I believe that there is also a spiritual component to healings that can be bolstered by the words spoken during the course of the blessing itself (I am perhaps a bit apostate in this sense, as Elder Oaks seems to think the actual words used when anointings to the sick are sealed are relatively nonessential); and in these cases I think it helps with the spiritual facet of the healing to know that the blessing given, and the counsel offered, are coming with the imprimaturs of priesthood authority and priesthood revelation.

That Melvin Lee dunk was during a college basketball game!!!! That was awesome!

The Follow Him podcast by Hank Smith and John Bytheway had a great two episode discussion with Barbara Gardner on section 84 that answered, or at least addressed, a lot of these questions. https://followhim.co/

JST - Genesis 14 heading states: some of those powers and blessings:

Great questions @Fether. Though in response I would further add to the role of the priesthood to what you have already said. It would appear that perfection, meaning completeness, is impossible as a single individual. It requires both male and female united in the marriage covenant. And beyond the unique physiological differences each brings to the table there also appears different roles that are played that are eternal in nature as well. I draw this as my conclusion to the fact that our Heavenly Mother's work seems to be totally behind the scenes during our mortal probation. Each is united in the task of creating and then the perfecting of their creation but the power to create appears to be different. Our Heavenly Father's creative power is called priesthood and our Heavenly Mother's power is called motherhood. Of course there is a lot of overlapping in their working together and neither work is totally separate from the other but these seem to be their individual primary responsibilities and it's not so very different from what we are taught about the nature or our marriage relationships here in this world. Now here's where I would add to what you stated as being the primary role of the priesthood. To say it's role ends with it's administration is like saying the role of motherhood ends at birth. The influence of holding of priesthood authority and the wielding of priesthood power goes far beyond the administration element. The act of ministering, as opposed to administering, as a priesthood holder has an ennobling and sanctifying effect on the one exercising it and can bring down eternal blessings upon the one being ministered to. So in response to your questions, you are correct in implying that no blessing will ever ultimately be denied the faithful whether "priesthood is in the home" or not. But the eventual reception of all blessings requires a priesthood holder who has, at some point, been fully sanctified by his work in the priesthood otherwise he is not a fit companion to carry on the work of creation in the eternities with his wife. So the importance of utilizing the priesthood when it is available is necessary to the establishment of eternal families and as such God has ordered "his house" to function in the way it does. My explanation may need some tweaking in places as my own understanding is still evolving as well but I think overall it's on the right track. (Hopefully 😀)

I googled the death's in US by cause and found a JAMA study, linked below. It is using preliminary data, but I found it interesting. COVID is 3rd in cause of death for 2020 behind heavyweight killers heart disease and cancer. Still the virus managed to rack up 10% of US kills. I thought that was impressive. I always feel pleased with myself if I score 10% of my teams points in basketball. I do understand that there is a question among some about the veracity of cause of COVID death claims. But in the "Understanding..." section, they say that at an analytical level, it appears that COVID deaths might actually be under-reported. On a tangent, I also found it interesting that suicide deaths went down (4k) for the year. I had assumed that they'd be up, thinking that the isolation would be harmful to those prone to it. But unintential injuries increased (20k) and they think a lot of that is drug related. So suicides are more than offset in that category. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2778234 (This isn't really directed at you @Vort, just quoted you because the comment on "large" is what sparked my search )

Umm . . . Law school?

Sadly, our profession has about a 2-1 suicide vs. line of duty death rate every year.

For someone adamantly against conspiracies, you sure seem positive it's out there.

Ah Furries. The ones who make the Bronies look well adjusted and normal.

At least be honest. It was this. https://youtu.be/21iW_YMLvmU

Also, Gator has been telling us this story of his wedding for a long time. But his Gator cosplay passion makes me wonder if he's not actually in the background...

FTR, this is a screenshot @LDSGator texted me of the music he was playing on his way to the grocery store.

Wait—aren’t the Gators the FSU mascot? I’m confused . . .

:: snickers :: I’m gonna let you figure out for yourself what side of this argument I’m more sympathetic to. If you say “Anti vax” you also think I like FSU football and Celine Dion “music”.

When you are trying to show off:

Are you sure you want to walk down this path? (Hint: You don't.) When we start talking about performance in various areas and insisting that they are genetically based, we open a veritable Pandora's Box of controversy. Unless you are willing to face the implications of such a discussion and deal rationally with the fallout, you're better off avoiding the whole thing.