Leaderboard

@JohnsonJones the Covid death numbers are inflated and we all know it. That is a huge part of the problem with this whole mess.

I don't believe the most recent statement to be doctrine of any kind. It has no direct bearing on salvation one way or the other whether one masks or vaccinates (and following the guidance of government and health authorities varies greatly by area), but it does make a difference if one follows the 1st Presidency's counsel. Prophetic counsel can simply be specific to a situation or individual without being canonized into any doctrinal umbrella. Consider counsel given to a leper to bathe in the River Jordan or other such acts (that were likely not necessary, but either bolstered faith or tested obedience) and yet they were never taught as something that others needed to do for healing, salvation, or anything else. However, these instances do showcase the outpouring of blessings available to those who follow the prophet, even in matters not tied to doctrinal teaching.

Well, the forum liberal here (who actually is normally considered independant but leaning conservative among normal people who aren't on the far right fringes...if that says anything about the tone of the forums...)... I take the stance that if abortion is murder, it does NOT MATTER WHAT THE situation is, it is STILL murder. Murder has different classifications...but in the end, it is still...murder. (and personally, despite being the forum liberal, this is more of the direction I lean...but this goes far beyond my personal feelings, and personally I'm not sure I should be enforcing personal beliefs on others in such a matter, but instead relegate to science and medical professionals for their opinions instead). Is murder excused? Is that what we are discussing? Whether we can excuse a murder due to another crime being committed...where the murder is NOT the individual who committed the crime, but yet another victim of the crime? Or are we discussing something else? Perhaps it isn't murder at all, perhaps we are discussing a part of someone's body which, like any other part of someone's body, is a living thing within it. In that case, the obvious question is should someone be able to remove a part of their body if they wish? If someone wants to remove their eyeballs...should they be allowed to do so? If they want to cut off their arms and legs just because they don't want them...should they be allowed to? Well, in some ways we are getting closer to that. In some transgender surgeries things like this occur, though we won't go into detail of WHAT is cut and what is not, or what is reconstructed. Perhaps there is some medical reason. We know that people get cancer and get parts of the body cut off or cut out. This normally is for health reasons. Who then determines what one can or cannot cut off our out of themselves? I think the original idea of Roe vs. Wade was a responsible choice. It LEFT that decision up to a Medical individual...normally a physician of some sort. Hopefully the physician would know the most about a patient to be able to make the best choice from a physical, psychological, and mental viewpoint of how it would affect a patients health. BUT, the more conservative side (yep, I know, forum liberal and all) of me says...we should have a smaller federal government and smaller government in general. Dictating and making laws about what people can or cannot do inherently increases the size of a government. Perhaps it would be better to literally stay out of it...but is that the moral or ethical thing to do. There are those people that would mutilate their bodies and themselves (and some do anyways) if given the chance and no doctor or medical personnel to stop them. In that aspect, perhaps we've GONE TOO FAR. Sometimes what we do with our bodies should NOT be our choice. Sometimes it should not be...my body...my choice...especially when it pertains to taking something inside or part of our body and cutting it off or out. Sometimes, medical personnel should be there. Perhaps, the better way is to mind our own business and let medical professionals do their thing? I think it is a HARD question to answer. I think many just want it black and white and don't consider anything else (much less of whether something really is a conservative or liberal choice...afterall, making more laws historically in the US was a more liberal action than a conservative one). Whatever it is, I don't think the Texas Law is the answer to it. It opens to many things that could be used as a reference to open up more cans of worms...say being sued for owning a gun, or being sued for being being LDS, or any number of other scenarios that the general populace do not see coming. I could see a complete blindside to conservatives due to this law in the next decade because they don't see that what can apply to one thing can be used as a precedent in another. This law makes a dangerous precedent, and if I were a liberal lawyer in certain areas (say guns and religious liberty) I'd be analyzing it to see how far I could push it based on precedents in the next few years. I don't think I'm the only one that sees it as a danger...not because of what the Law set out to do, but the unforeseen consequences of what it could be USED to do. I think there are a LOT of people out there (and a LOT of them are conservatives) that see it as well. I understand WHY the Supreme Court ruled as it did, but it doesn't make me any more comfortable with how the Texas Law was crafted or what it could be used to do in other areas beyond what it was originally planned.

https://usdebtclock.org

What is crazy is using ectopic pregnancy and cases of pregnancy after rape to justify the acceptation of abortion anytime for anyone at any trimester.

Yup still believe in God and the Atonement. It would take a mighty change of heart and a large helping of humble pie to get my brother back in the fold though.

To each his own. Everyone has to navigate according to their conscious and promptings of the Holy Ghost. Ectopic pregnancies are identified because the mother has acute abdominal pain. It’s obvious that something must be done… We had 11 pregnancies and 11 live births. My wife just reminded me that our 16 year old son (just got his license) had 2 markers for down syndrome on his ultrasound. We were offered an amniocentesis which we turned down. On our last 5 pregnancies, we entirely skipped all medical tests other than the pee stick. And I solo assisted my wife deliver all of them in our home. It is an amazingly simple medical procedure. My baby toolkit consists of a tarp and bath-towels to keep things tidy and 2 cable zip ties as well as a Leatherman to cut the cord.

I’m still not convinced we really know what debt will and won’t do in the long run

Wikipedia provides an estimate of 1.1 trillion for Iraq and the AP estimates almost 2.2 trillion for Afghanistan. Are you bringing this up because the new spending bill is also spread out over 2 decades? Or because you think this bill is justified by “promoting the general welfare” just as that spending was justified under “providing for the common defense”? Or do you think the comparison will have bite because most people on this site support the nation building parts of those wars?

The other reason that side controls the dialogue is because the pro life side is a mess. They spend too much of their time infighting about exceptions, birth control, tactics, other social issues....it’s basically a textbook on how to fail. Now, that said, things are changing for the pro life side. They’ve smartened up (only took them 40 years) and are now aligning with pro-life gays, pro life atheists, not arguing about other social issues, etc.So I think the pro life side is on the upswing, at least slightly

@mikbone It is kind of crazy that people want to ride the slippery slope all the way to the bottom. I don't know how to make the slope less sloped or less slippery. In the case of ectopic pregnancy, the decision to terminate is pretty black and white, but there are many other cases where the choice is not as clear cut. What might the moral calculus look like when we consider these exceptions? What goes into the decision to terminate or keep the pregnancy?

Something about the atonement is that one way of seeing how it fulfills justice is that we are ALL guilty of causing him pain and killing him. Which is the greater law, that of man or that of the Lord? We have ALL broken the law of the Lord. WE are all sentenced to go to Hell. That is justice. We are ALL sentenced to death. That is justice. The dead cannot demand justice of others. WE do not have the dead stand in court, only the living. Perhaps a living person wants to represent a dead person, but it is still a living person. No dead speak in court. The dead cannot accuse...only the living. IF we are all dead, there is no one left to accuse another one for justice. ONLY through the Savior's love and atonement can we find life, thus only by his sacrifice. He broke the bands of death, both physical and spiritual so we could live again. To do this, he took upon him all the pain and punishment that we would suffer upon himself, thus taking upon himself the only one that can actually make accusation or make judgements after this. As the dead can not accuse another, and only the living, only the Living Christ can be our Savior and advocate, and as he has the ultimate word, we could not ask for a better advocate in this life or the next.

You're just now figuring out they are two sides of the same coin? Your SS is now set to be slashed in 12 years.

Part of this thread is why I like JP:

And yet people keep lining up to drink the government Kool-aid.

It seems that if there had been a known safe and effective treatment than the vaccines couldn't have been given emergency use authorizations and the developers of those products would be out a lot of money waiting for properly vetted approval before a single shot could go into any arm and people couldn't be scared into taking them as much if an effective alternative were widely known to be available. The sad part about this is that it's not the first nor the last time that treatments for "vaccine-preventable" illness have been largely ignored. Since vaccines are never perfect, it only makes sense to still make sure that treatments are available for all those who become sick regardless of vaccination history. Yet, historically once vaccines are entrenched as safe and effective for a particular illness state, further research into treatments is greatly inhibited, even though eradication is the exception and not the rule.

Oh no apology needed my friend. It’s exactly how I feel. It’s how I still feel too. I’ll be the first one to admit when I don’t understand something. When I die and if I meet my Savior, I’ll still have questions. I’m confident He will answer them. I’d much rather be honest and disagree with people than lie to keep the peace. So yes, it’s how I feel.

Oh, yeah; that’s elephant in the room when we talk about elective abortion. It always makes me giggle a little when feminists complain that abortion regulation is just men trying to get access to women’s bodies; and I have to bite my lip to avoid saying “Dearie, men already have access to your body. That’s why you want the abortion.”

I don’t disagree with you, but I do offer a word of caution. Charity towards the bully is often cruelty towards their victims. So while I admire you and support you 100% for showing compassion for a bully and their problems, we must first administer to their victims.

It doesn't. All your articles state "not approved and higher concentrations". All that means is "we don't approve it and you need to be aware of your dosage". Here's some for you. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/ It makes a rational person wonder why they rushed a vaccine through to approval and yet they are ignoring clinical trials and reports of success with ivermectin.

What makes the ivermectin that doctors prescribe different than the ivermectin in horse medicine? I find more irony in the crowd that says "they missed the mark, there AREN'T overwhelming issues with people taking ivermectin, but you still shouldn't take it even though it appears to work"

The old version of suffer means to allow something and in this instance specifically I think it means that we will allow others to do whatever they want and we'll still have charity for them. Or in other words it's not based on reciprocity. Great patience could be a related quality. Being that charity is a spiritual gift I don't think it can be selectively turned on or off. The love we naturally feel towards family may make it seem like we only have charity only for family but those aren't the same kinds of love.

'Rolling Stone' Caught Peddling Fake News About Ivermectin 'Horse Dewormer' Overdoses Overwhelming ERs https://pjmedia.com/uncategorized/megan-fox/2021/09/05/rolling-stone-caught-peddling-fake-news-about-non-existent-ivermectin-overdoses-but-hasnt-even-corrected-the-headline-n1476231 "Rolling Stone magazine is in hot water for publishing fake news about an alleged rash of Ivermectin overdoses that they reported were taking over the emergency rooms in Oklahoma." " .., the story was totally false. The doctor Rolling Stone quoted, Dr. Jason McElyea, isn’t even working at the emergency room he claimed was overrun by nonexistent Ivermectin overdoses. Rolling Stone issued an update: UPDATE: Northeastern Hospital System Sequoyah issued a statement: Although Dr. Jason McElyea is not an employee of NHS Sequoyah, he is affiliated with a medical staffing group that provides coverage for our emergency room. With that said, Dr. McElyea has not worked at our Sallisaw location in over 2 months. NHS Sequoyah has not treated any patients due to complications related to taking ivermectin. This includes not treating any patients for ivermectin overdose." Amazing how the press ran with this without even checking the story out or its sources.

There has never been a successful vaccine for the common cold, or for HIV, despite many efforts. Perhaps the most promising technology I've ever read about that would treat a multitude of virus strains is called DRACO (double-stranded RNA activated caspase oligomerizer). Despite DRACO's excellent lab results, it has never been able to attract industry funding to complete development. Skeptics may attribute that to the reluctance of pharmaceutical companies to pursue any solutions that do not provide an ongoing money stream (i.e. develop therapeutics, not cures) but only the developing researcher at MIT (Dr. Todd Rider) would know. COVID is a double stranded RNA virus and would theoretically be cured by the administration of DRACO, but the US government has not pursued advancing the technology. That does confuse me.

Suzie, I honestly cannot tell if you're being disingenuous or inattentive to everything I've actually written on the matter here. Did you read everything that I've written in the thread? And if you did are you intentionally cherry picking that, admittedly poor, phrase? Do you really believe that I think raped women "just" have the blues and they should just get over it or something? I really don't want to get into fights and have excessive contention. I'd leave the forum again first. But, I mean...seriously...do you honestly believe that of...well.....anyone who isn't severely mentally and emotionally stunted? If you really believe that of me it's hard to want to actually join with you in conversation on the matter. Do you think so little of me? That I'm really that big of a terrible, callous pig? It's incredibly frustrating to have someone be so passively aggressively rude as to imply I'm that obtuse and cold blooded about rape. I don't know how to respond other than this bluntly. I won't pursue debate and contention with you further on it. I really don't want contention. I considered not responding at all. Maybe I shouldn't have. But I hope that you can make an effort to actually understand me, and I can make an effort as well to actually understand you -- which I do, I might add. I am not, in any way, adamant that women should be legally forced to carry a baby from a rape...I am discussing principles and ideas that are very difficult, and I do understand that. Extremely difficult. It would be nice to have any acknowledgement from someone joining in on the conversation that they even remotely understood my point of view on the matter instead of exaggerating a single moment of poor wording to imply I'm nothing more than a chauvinistic jerk whose opinions, accordingly, are not worth consideration. @The Folk ProphetHonestly, I'm surprised by your response. I re-read my post several times to see where I have given you the impression of being disingenuous, intentionally cherry picking or what is worse, think that I could consider you a "terrible, callous pig". Those are very strong words. We don't know each other and even though we might disagree in our discussions here, I would never think of you (my brother in Christ) in this manner (or anyone else for that matter). I don't appreciate you calling me passively aggressively rude when I wasn't, honestly I think you need to calm down a bit. I have done nothing to deserve this response other than offer my respectful opinion. Having said that, I wish you all the best.

It would be a good move for them. Independence has not treated them like they thought (delusions of grandeur ala Notre Lame.)

I know this group tends to disdain the more liberal and progressive sides of the Church, but, if you look over there, you will find anecdotes of people claiming to have received such revelations. Perhaps I have no moral backbone, but I have no desire to try to decide which of these revelations was legitimate and which were not. I certainly don't want the state charged with adjudicating what constitutes "genuine" revelation. I believe that abortion is a morally significant issue, but I don't know how to craft legislation that adequately addresses the moral issue (recognizing that the Tx law is probably more about political messaging/posturing and not really about wrestling with the moral ambiguities) with it's gray areas. I find myself preferring to leave government out of the difficult decisions and leave those decisions up to individuals. Sure, that means that some people will abuse the privilege, but that seems preferable to me to having the state be placed in a position of choosing for people how to make morally ambiguous decisions.

Peak Disney: 1962 and the Osmond brothers. https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMRU4XWy2/

Although the Church allows for the possibility of personal revelation for certain scenarios. Given the terrible things Heavenly Father 'allows' to happen all over the world because of our individual agency, I can't personally imagine a situation where someone would get a confirming revelation to abort a child solely on the basis of rape or incest. Without that personal revelation, it would still be a gravely sinful act by the Church's standards noted in the handbook, although I can't imagine any discipline would take place.

I'll probably address your post point by point better tomorrow (Maybe. Part of me feel like we might be going in circles here to no avail.) But I thought I'd at least address this now. So of all the legitimate medications developed to help people through serious trauma, you went with ibuprofen and you're claiming that was what you really thought I meant? That being said, I have no real expertise to explain exactly what medication or therapy I have in mind other than a general theory. I am simply saying the exploration of said idea ought to be serious and thorough before one determines that killing a baby is justified. And I don't think blowing it off as, "so you're suggesting giving her an ibuprofen" is a fair or reasonable response to that. Not to mention the same sort of theoretical offensiveness that I jumped down Suzie's throat for. I am talking about sanctity for the life for the purely innocent and doing all that we can, even in our theoretical approach to discussion, to put that forward as an extremely high priority, and I'm being treated like I could care less about rape? "Well heck, just give 'em an ibuprofen then and they'll be fine!" I did not say that. I do not think that.

1. To be clear, I am conceding arguendo that the baby is just that--a full-fledged baby. I'm not sure to what degree I believe that that's true in the first few weeks after conception, but I'm happy to "steel-man" the argument. I'd rather wrongfully describe it as life, than wrongfully describe it as not life. The trouble with asking if the situation changes if we're holding the baby, out-of-utero, in our arms; is that the fact that it's no longer in the mother means it's no longer causing that psychological trauma--the victim isn't pregnant, she's not feeling symptoms (or the death of the baby will no longer alleviate the symptoms), she's no longer required to be in the perpetual presence of the baby. And of course you don't kill a human who isn't a threat to you. 2. a) Is all "rape" equal? Hoo, boy; you're gonna get me in trouble with this one! . . . Theoretically, I suppose objectively there are particular uniquely traumatic occurrences that are present in some rapes but not others. That said, as a guy and as a non-rape-victim, am I going to get into the business of telling a rape victim just how psychologically damaging she ought to deem her experience to be? Heck no! b) It's not always the only option. But in some cases, where the child's presence in utero, combined with the ongoing symptoms of pregnancy, cause ongoing psychological damage, there may not be an immediate remedy to the ongoing psychological rape that is occurring. c) Because , whether one is a baby or an adult, no person's natural rights include having one's own material needs met through the compulsory involuntary servitude of others.* (That's why you and I both oppose nationalized health care and are suspicious of government welfare programs, no?) Scarlett O'Hara may be starving and about to lose Tara, but she doesn't get to put her former servants back into chains and make them work the farm for her own support. Now, if they choose to keep working on her behalf, then their compassion is certainly laudable. But ultimately they owe her nothing; theirs is the right to walk away, even if it means Scarlett dies. By contrast, the right to self-defense and to use lethal force, not only against a person posing a threat of likely death or physical trauma, but against a person posing a threat of likely severe emotional trauma (and even if the threatening person's mental state renders them incapable of forming any actual malicious intent) is well established. Put another way, it seems you're trying to assert a positive right of the child against a negative right of the mother; and I think that when they cannot otherwise be reconciled, negative rights will generally trump positive rights. *One could argue that family relationships constitute just such a relationship; but these are consensually entered by the burdened parties, even if the parties may occasionally regret their choices thereafter. 3. Frankly, yeah; I kind of did think it approached what you were saying; and it didn't sound like you. But I understood you as suggesting therapy and meds, while insisting that the situation ought to be permitted to persist until such time as the therapy and meds might actually begin to dull the pain (if ever they do). I'm glad to hear that I misinterpreted, and I'd love to hear a little more about what you actually had in mind. 4. Frankly--I don't know. But--and here's where the rubber hits the road for policy discussions like this--I am darned sure that I wouldn't seek to impoverish or imprison a dad who did. But if we believe that life begins at conception, do we really want to create a regimen where abortion is the default option? I've spilled a lot of virtual ink here in defending a rape victim's right to abort--but I would always hope she could find it within herself to deliver the baby.

Lethal defense against rape is fully justified in my view. Lethal defense against having to feel bad about carrying a child, give birth and then give said child up for adoption....not exactly the same thing. It would be a terrible thing to have to do. I'm not denying that. I am questioning whether that justifies lethal defense. Seems to me like therapy, medication and other means of dealing with the trauma should be the go to. Because, after all, we're talking about killing a baby, not some creepy guy in your living room. You do whatever you need to to preserve that life. It is the priority. Just as you would a born baby. That baby's life comes first. You protect it first. You die first before it does. You face whatever trauma you have to in order to protect it. You deal with those things to protect the innocent. This is an oversimplified view of a very complex issue. Women who are raped and pregnant aren't just "feeling bad" for carrying a child. As JAG posted "By its nature, it--both the memory of the event, and the simple knowledge that the event occurred--forces itself into the mind of the victim and repeats itself, over and over and over and over again, until she is reduced to a non-functional gibbering wreck; and then it repeats itself some more. Thus, when we see a woman who is pregnant as a result of a rape, I believe it is wrong to see her purely as a victim of a past act that happens to have some ongoing fallout. In a very real sense, she is still being raped. Psychologically, maybe the baby is part of that dynamic, and maybe it's not--no one can tell but the victim herself. " Some women can cope with this horrific situation, give birth and give up the baby for adoption or even raise the child as their own. Other women cannot. From a psychological point of view, you're endangering this woman's life but also the baby she's carrying. It can lead to serious consequences (and depending on the severity of the trauma) it can cause the woman to attempt suicide or harm her unborn child.

I largely agree with you here; but what bewildered me was your apparent suggestion that all abortions—even (given the context of our discussion) those requested by and for rape victims—are tantamount to murder. What definitions are we using? Are we using a fixed standard, or are we just post hoc labeling as “murders” the subset of killings that we find subjectively distasteful? Isn’t “murder”, in the colloquial sense, really just shorthand for “unjustified killing”; and if so, isn’t it kind of unhelpful to insist on labeling abortion as “murder” before we undertake an analysis of whether it might ever be justified? Ammaron accused Moroni and Teancum of having undertaken the murder of Amalickiah. Did they?

Ok, thanks for clarifying. Barring abortion for rape cases, of course, creates collateral damage too. In that vein one might ask in return how you would protect a bona fide rape victim from being forced to re-live her experience dozens (hundreds?) of times per day, every day for nine months, by having to keep a tangible and growing and increasingly-physically-painful reminder of that rape, inside her body? Naturally, there are no perfect solutions here either way. The best balance I can think of is requiring a police report, including a statement signed under penalty of perjury. Frankly, regardless of abortion restrictions, in today’s society men already know that any sexual interaction with a woman subjects them to a possible false allegation of rape. At a certain point the risk of a false accusation, like the risk of pregnancy itself, is just a cost of doing business; and if people don’t like the cost—they shouldn’t do the business. I would also note that most of those young men want these babies aborted just as much as the mothers do; so I don’t think we need to get excessively worked up over the possibility that noble sons of Zion will be having their good names besmirched by worthless young strumpets here. But if you feel a nine-month phase-in for a statutory regimen like this is necessary to protect the reputations and legal rights of rakish young cads, I suppose I could get on board with that.

Legal protections against the accused rapist, you mean? [Note—that’s not an attempt at a rhetorical point; I just want to be sure I understand you.]

Lots of good thoughts; the one I've cited above is perhaps the only one to which I might have anything salient/potentially useful to add in response I think a better analogy would be: Do you bomb Hitler's army, knowing that a nuclear Stalin will be overthrowing free governments throughout eastern Europe in the next three years?? How hard do you push the Imperial Japanese Army, knowing that Mao Tse-Tung is lying in wait to slaughter a hundred million Chinese? As Americans, it's easy for us to tut-tut about the necessity of annihilating Hitler and Imperial Japan; because we didn't have to really deal with what came afterwards--not in the same way others did. If we'd grown up in East Germany or Taiwan, we might see things differently. I fear that our confidence in our ability to keep "winning" short-term battle after short-term battle, rather than implementing and building up systems that will (if not always letting right prevail, at least) maintain our own liberty, keep a lid on open warfare, and withstand the test of time; is the primary difference between ourselves and our American ancestors.

We had a Deaf member in our ward for a time. I enjoyed a number of conversations with him on this topic while reading his dissertation (about improving education of Deaf individuals) and helping him prepare statistical methods and analyses. It was very much an empathy developing experience for me. Some of the things I learned from him Deaf culture is very much a thing. This is because language and culture are intertwined. Their culture affects their language and their language affects their culture. For many living in Deaf culture, receiving cochlear implants is akin to rejecting a part of the culture (I'm not interested in debating if this is rational or fair, especially among adults. I insist, however, in recognizing that it is how many in the Deaf community feel). Receiving cochlear implants would be somewhat similar to a person in a very strict and orthodox Mennonite community opting to join a less restrictive community that permits the use of light bulbs. It may seem to us outsiders that not much has changed, and that life should now be easier with light bulbs instead of candles--but the original community feels a sense of rejection and loss. In addition to that cultural aspect, Deaf culture is also on very high alert. For most of human history, deafness has been considered a burden and limitation. We've typically spent more time trying to correct and/or ignore the problem than we have addressing it. In the not-so-distant past, we sent deaf kids to "special schools." These weren't really schools, though. They were often more like asylums, hiding an inconvenient problem. In many, sign language was banned, and lip reading was required. Abuse was rampant, frequently unchecked. And because Deaf people were easily dismissed as damaged and unintelligent, their complaints often went unaddressed. Deaf culture views attempts to "normalize" them into the hearing world as a step back toward those more abusive days. Another really important aspect of their hesitancy is developmental. Humans develop a sense of language between 18 and 36 months of age. When I say this, I mean that language is more than just words and grammar. It's the entire sense of building meaning through the use of sounds, gestures, and shared representations. For deaf children, pushing for cochlear implants, or lip reading, or other things that make it easier for non-deaf people to communicate with the child stunts their development of language. If my friends research taught me anything, it was that deaf kids who learn ASL first do better in almost all aspects of life, but especially in language and communication. And it is because, in those developmental months, they are able to develop language, instead of just words. Lastly, and I think this is probably the hardest one for the hearing to understand, is that being able to hear offers very little in the way of improving their quality of life. For a deaf individual, being able to hear doesn't make it easier to communicate; it actually makes it somewhat harder. Remember, ASL is not English. So as soon as you put that implant in, they are bombarded in a foreign language and culture. All of a sudden, subtleties in pronunciation and tone convey a very complex array of meanings that we have spent a lifetime developing and interpreting. On to of that, the feedback loop isn't very good, because implants might make hearing possible, but it doesn't make it perfect. My friend said that, on a good day, he could make sense of about half of what anyone was saying to him. He had to rely on context and visual communication to fill in the rest. In short, the implant didn't make it easier for him to communicate to the hearing, it only made it easier for the hearing to communicate with him. I should probably stop here, but some other minor points might be of interest. Given the inefficiency of implants in adults, it is tempting to think that the earlier you can place an implant, the better. But remember, children need to develop a sense of language before they can learn to communicate concepts effectively. And communicating concepts about how well you can hear and distinguish sounds is a pretty abstract concept. How does one with no hearing background perceive the difference between the 'sh' in should and the 'zh' sound in azure? The more time we make a child focus on what they hear, the less time and energy they will spend on language. And very importantly, written communication is a poor substitute for the deaf. English is not their primary language. When they try to write and/or read English, they are communicating in their second language. Asking a deaf person to communicate via writing is like providing a Portuguese interpreter to a Spanish speaker. They will get the gist, but they may miss some of the details. As an exercise, try imagining a language without articles (the, a, an). How do you communicate the difference between "the cat" and "a cat?" Now, there are lots of spoken languages in the world that do this (many Slavic languages lack articles) and native speakers are quite adept at picking up the difference from context. ASL works the same way. So anyway, there are a number of cultural influences in the Deaf community that make many of them hesitant toward implants. Some may be more valid than others, but I think it is a big mistake to dismiss those influences simply because we don't understand them. And that may be the biggest contributor to their hesitancy: often, it feels like the hearing don't want to understand the Deaf--they just want the Deaf to be more like the hearing

Your brother seems like he's carrying some major hurt. I doubt any answer here will truly help him- rather specifically resolve that decade+ of old hurt. I just don't see that happening. But to answer the question nonetheless: vast majority of the time, things are indeed focused on Christ & the concepts of loving each other-- as they should be, those are the most important. Sometimes there are specific situations where loving your neighbor does come to a specific call of action: such as the need for us all to fight this pandemic and take care of each other. It's not a "I can do whatever I want and I'm not going to affect anyone else" situation. Yes, there is that strong urging for covid cautious in scheduled programs (closing down Sacrament meetings, temples, etc) and individuals day to day (asking people to vaccinate, mask, social distance, etc). As to people struggling with this urging: yes some people do indeed struggle. We're all human: some readily follow, some rationalize blatant blowing it off, some kind of in the middle, etc. I'm not going to pretend that's not the case. We're each supposed to study things out: think for yourself, look at leaders words, consult with the Lord, etc. It never should be about just blindly following. I personally do find that the covid-cautious route is wise and agree full heartedly here. I also acknowledge that others have more internal conflict on this topic. And my heart goes out to those people: I myself have struggled with other topics. My heart is sympathetic and moved, though I still urge what I believe to be best (the covid-cautious route). And I totally acknowledge whatever path you've taken on this and other issues.

Dude, that is a bad parasite. Most patients don't make it past the incubation period.

I hate that, especially when my tendons leave a gap between my shoulder and my armpit.

KISS is a great band. Florida Gators are my favorite college. I love Tim Tebow. Baseball is my favorite sport. I like horror movies and books. Oh I could just go on and on...

Anything that @mirkwood says.

Some of y’all be like