Leaderboard

A few weeks ago, we flew to Chicago to attend my son's law school graduation. The commencement ceremony for the law school included two primary speakers, a woman and a man. The woman spoke first. She had a lengthy list of qualifications (including a director of Planned Parenthood, which lessened her substantially in my son's estimation). She began her talk by saying that such commencement speeches typically included lists of platitudes, which she promised to follow. True to her word, she then offered one of the most uninteresting, useless talks I can ever remember listening to in any venue. "Utterly forgettable" does not do justice to just how useless this talk was. Of course, she was wildly applauded when she finished—though I wonder if the applause was less for the talk she had given and more for the fact that it was over. The man spoke next. He, too, had a lengthy list of qualifications, including being a practicing lawyer who (I think) argued before the Supreme Court, a highly influential professor, and a respected author. He offered a truly interesting and insightful speech on the importance of the Supreme Court and dismissed the idea that the justices there were biased on the whole. It made up for the cringing boredom of the previous speaker. He, too, was applauded, though it seemed to me that his talk was not as well-received as the previous travesty. Lessons: Platitudes often take the place of actual thought and ideas. In addition, platitudes tend to be better received by society, even (perhaps especially) by those who call themselves well-educated.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." (Introduction to the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America) "Produce your cause, saith the Lord; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob." (Isaiah 41:21) If insurrection is an option, then the insurrectionists are duty- and honor-bound to spell out their justifications.

Speaking as someone with an MBA? All too often, the higher a person goes into academia, the more divorced they become from the world *outside* of academia. This is because they frequently end up insulated from life beyond the Ivory Tower, associating only with other academics who often have similar opinions and lifestyles. If they spend too much time like this, they can actually develop a contempt for people who don't have their same level of academic credentials, and may even be so arrogant as to declare that people who aren't on their "level" shouldn't even have the right to speak to them about various topics and should merely sit & listen to their "betters". Such a mindset appears to be especially prevalent in the humanities and social sciences. To be brutally honest, two of the most willfully ignorant people I ever encountered were individuals who had doctoral degrees in their respective fields (social sciences and theology, respectively). They treated their doctorates as shields of invulnerability, and refused to listen to even credible, reputable sources when it came to information that contradicted their personal biases about how the world worked.

We seem to now have a society in pretty much the entire developed world where we choose to believe falsehoods and stick with it no matter what. The fact that they're sticking to their guns is actually an admirable quality. People have the second half of that equation down pat. The problem is that too often, they don't abide by the first half of the equation. Why is that? Human beings have a natural desire for truth. Truth brings us peace. The Light of Christ tells us all that this is true. And truth provides a sense of security. Virtually any continually surviving religion today will provide a moral framework for people to determine what is truth. Religious conviction should also be slow in forming. We are raised through years of teaching. One may call it indoctrination if one disagrees with what is taught. But it doesn't matter. The child growing up in it is always curious. Some ask more questions than others. But they still take years and years to form their convictions about that religion -- even if they were indoctrinated since childhood. Whether right or wrong, they have learned There is such a thing as "truth". To reason out (whether false foundation or not) how truths fit together. They have learned how one truth will lead to another truth. To understand that knowing the truth will help guide their lives. They have put that system through their own natural curiosity of "how & why". That much at least provides a foundation for "proving all things." The problem we see today about the rising generation leaving religion in droves is not because they realize what they were taught was wrong. The problem is that they were never taught "truth" in the first place. Parents falsely believe that they shouldn't "force" their religion on their children. And there is a genuine wisdom in not "forcing" it upon them. But that often translates into "shield them from any religion at all." If you're never taught what is true (or worse, that there actually isn't a "truth" at all) how can one recognize it when they hear it? When people start off being told that there is no truth, then by default, they will believe what is false. As children of God, our spirits are fed by light and truth. We NEED truth. And if we can't find truth from our early surroundings, we desperately grab onto some falsehood as truth. "Hold fast to that which is false" becomes teh default. No such thing as "slowly forming convictions". No such thing as "proving all things". A starving person doesn't care if food is poisoned. They will ravenously eat it anyway. I would rather have a child brought up in a false religion than to have them raised with no religion at all. The false religion has a foundation of the idea of truth that we can work with. But to be raised thinking there is no truth? Exits from such a deep pit are few and far between.

The teacher or SS presidency or the bishopric reading the material doesn't change the fact that no one in the class has read the material. (Usu. the bishopric and SS presidencey don't attend the class.) "Encourage discussion"??? Discussion from whom? If the teacher is the only one who's read it, then how does he get the class to discuss something they haven't read? This ends up being the default. And that is unfortunate.

Jacob’s Ladder Genesis 28:12? When you climb a ladder, you must begin at the bottom and go on until you learn the last principle; it will be a great while before you have learned the last. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it is a great thing to learn salvation beyong the grave. Joseph Smith, 7 April 1844 General Conference, as Reported by Times and Seasons

This past Sunday the YSA branch I help out at did a somewhat awkward bit on Samuel and Saul. Don't know if this is where we should have been as I am reading the scriptures on my own schedule (one chapter of each of the four main works a week), but there we are.

How does one encourage discussion about the scriptures when no one reads the material?

i taught this lesson, and I covered it all. We discussed how the book of Judges is about the fall of Israel from mostly good to downright evil of it's 500 years of time. We also discussed the Canaanite worship of Ba'al, with child sacrifice, and how that infiltrated every aspect of Israel. Even to the point where the Judges murdering their own children in this way. The lesson also showed how patient the Lord really is, because he would send saviors to rescue them from their sin.

Perhaps we need a rather long and deep discussion to consider each other's view in this matter. This statement: It is my opinion that this is a beginning excuse of a latinity of lies we want so badly to tell ourselves. Every human that comes into this world is armed with the "spirit of Christ" by divine covenant. It is impossible (my opinion) to be confused of what is true at any level without first rejecting that spirit of Christ - that I believe can only be done through a lie we tell ourselves to justify it. I also believe that regardless of how far we have strayed from this light of truth - it will still haunt us and cause us shame and embarrassment - which is the beginning of secrets and distrust. I believe that the proving of things is nothing more than being aware or becoming awaken by that "spirit of Christ" which cannot be ignored except we lie to ourselves first. One little side note that I believe is attached to this - is why Lucifer became Satan and the father of lies - because he first lied (that infamous very first lie) to himself. The Traveler

It may be a reference to Psalms 48:2 "Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth, is mount Zion, on the sides of the north, the city of the great King." And other scriptures like it. There are many references to Mount Zion, which sounds like you would have to climb up to be there. Also, in the Book of Enoch there are references to the Son's of God living on a mountain. Here is the footnote for Mount Zion in Psalms 48:2 "There was in various lands a concept that the dwelling place of Deity was in the “north.” Isa. 14:13."

All of these groups are like the Proud Boys or Oath Keepers. Violent thugs who are loved by the extremes of their party and hated by all decent people. I can deal with college leftists and pearl clutching uber prudes. It’s the groups that advocate violence that repulse me.

I see they are focusing on “Jane’s revenge “. I notice it doesn’t say a thing about the JaneSentUs folks. Which has its own website, and are the folks responsible for doxxing the home address of the supreme court justice.

https://reason.com/2022/06/21/janes-revenge-abortion-terror-group-or-terror-hoax/?fbclid=IwAR2GsHSlVmPqvQ9EApXga6wW3pXxYG65RtumKrdvsCPAaN978C23aVTTcBk&fs=e&s=cl Reason magazine had a report on those pro choice attacks.

Civically speaking, I believe we have the proper guidance on the matter: when a long train of abuses... Still, the principles will determine the results. If we truly are justified, then the Lord will be behind us. And the reverse would be the obvious corellary. So, if we really are willing to pledge our lives, our fortunes, and out sacred honor on the outcome, then rebellion/insurrection is on the table But that has to be backed up by the judgement of God to determine if it really is "OK when WE do it." And that is the real trick, isn't it?

You jest, but it was amazing to me to find out how many Americans—I believe it's a majority—think that the direction of toilet bowl water spin is determined by the Coriolis force.

Same as Scotty’s; just the most recent week for us. I’m currently serving in our ward Sunday school presidency, and I think our ward’s teachers have mostly surrendered to the idea that they just won’t cover everything. With that sense of urgency gone, we’ve seen some really good discussions. My approach is that if you can get people to really enjoy taking about the scriptures, that’ll inspire them to go home and study more on their own time—where, so suspect, most of the actual “learning” is going to take place.

As a theological principle you’re no doubt correct—representative democracy is a means, not an end unto itself. But as a civic/human behavioral principle: in a democracy, once one side adopts a “but it’s OK when WE do it” attitude, the whole ball of wax inevitably starts to unravel. So I think as a practical matter it’s generally the best policy to keep playing by the rules as long as possible, even if in our heart of hearts we feel like the rules shouldn’t quite apply to us. If we are going to engage in a course of action that we know will pull our democracy apart, then we’d better be sure we know what comes immediately afterwards—and the truth is, we just don’t.

It seems to me like the left truly wants conflict, but they don't want to get caught starting it so they can continue claiming moral supremacy. Kind of like the annoying sibling that says "I'm not touching you" over and over again until the other one finally smacks their hand away. Then they go crying to mom and dad and the one who lashed out gets in trouble, when all they really wanted was to be left alone.

Like BLM, ANTIFA, Defund the Police, and Maxine Waters?

It’s true. I served my mission in equatorial Brazil, and no one had flush toilets there because they don’t work—the water can’t decide whether to go clockwise or counterclockwise, so the toilet never empties.