Leaderboard

While I think Trump was a good President, I hope he does not run again, or loses to a quality opponent in a primary. I do not think a second term with him at the helm would be good for the country. We are wayyyyy to polarized at this point for him to be President again.

Also, crystal meth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine#History,_society,_and_culture One of the dirty little secrets of WWII was that Germany had developed what we now know as crystal meth. It was regarded as a "wonder drug" for how it stimulated people, and was sold over-the-counter in tubes under the name "Pervitin". Pretty much every German soldier was issued a supply of this, and it was also given to the factory workers at certain critical factories. The French reservists and second-line soldiers who were tasked with trying to defend the central portion of France from the German blitz simply didn't have a chance. They were poorly trained, poorly equipped, and having to fight tank-driving meth heads. Yes, France was so convinced that the Germans were going to invade through the flat northern portion and so put the bulk of their forces there; this left second-line and reserve forces in the center despite warnings from junior officers, and sure enough the German forces feinted in the north to conceal their push through the center.

I don't think God has or ever will set a point in time (i.e. the end of our mortal probation) where he says our fate is sealed no matter how much we might be willing to progress in the future. There is no perfect mercy in that scenario, in my mind. So that leads me to wonder if there is another reason which might allow God to make permanent assignments to kingdoms of glory following this life. We are taught that the past, present and future are always before God as one eternal now. However that is possible perhaps there was never any doubt in His mind (and possibly even ours?) where every single soul should end up or in other words how far each of us would progress and the conditions we find ourselves in this life are simply geared to further that reality. This could be one explanation of why so many followed Satan because they did not like where they were heading under God's plan for His children.

What are you referring to regarding the "announcement"? If anything, he is more a puppet. The guy can't even think straight. Hard to be the beast when you truly can't act like one. He definitely is part of the great and spacious building, the mother of harlots, etc... Weaponizing government agencies, against political opponents, would definitely be a sign for this organization.

I have some times mused on how entertaining it would be, as a criminal defense lawyer, to defend a murder suspect using all of the rationalizations and excuses and half-truths and hair-splitting arguments that the elective abortionists use.

I've spent some more time thinking about this. And I'd like to add some things to the conversation. Many people in the Church believe that everything Joseph wrote in what we have today as the JST is a full and complete "correction". Well, they are wrong on two accounts. He never actually completed all of his markups. He was martyred before that was done. While he restored much that was lost (e.g. Matt 24) many of his markups were simply commentary & clarifications. They weren't meant to be "corrections" at all. There is a very famous volume known as the "Matthew Henry Commentary". It is considered the hallmark of Biblical commentaries throughout Christianity today. It appears that many of the comments and clarifications that Joseph wrote were nearly word-for-word copies of some of M.H.'s commentary. Some items, it seems, were not KJV mistranslations, but because Joseph was commenting that FOR OUR DAY, the scriptures would be worded a bit differently. 1 Tim 2 is a controversial chapter because it tells women to shut up and do what their husbands tell them to do. (Eph 5:22 also is one that the woke crowd uses to justify the claim that the Bible was clearly written by bigoted men. Forget about verse 21 or 25, that will ruin their narrative.) I took a closer look at 1 Tim 2:15 in various translations. Some translations will justify this connection of "she" (in the first phrase) and "they" (in the second phrase) by using "women" in place of "she". But the Greek clearly does not say that. The Greek texts clearly show a third person singular inflection for "she" and third person plural for "they". So, what are we to make of this? Many Saints will look at the JST and reckon that the version we have is simply a later version that didn't preserve the correct word. I think that is a mistake. I believe that the translation we have in the KJV is correct as it stands. That is probably what Paul wrote. As I stated in my previous post, I believe it was more of a commentary to update it for our dispensation rather than a correction of what our current texts say. There was counsel in that chapter about not wearing flagrant jewelry or hair styles, etc. But as a rule men simply didn't do that back then. It is only in today's society of luxury and opulence do men even have the notion of doing so. They have historically men doing so have been outliers. But since the renaissance? Especially in the last 50 years? Yes, men need to have the same counsel. Let me bring you back to the last phrase of the chapter. "...if THEY shall continue..." It was always about the unity of husband and wife. And if women have a particular problem, it is the prophet's job to shut women down. If men have a particular problem, it is the prophet's job to shut them down. I can't tell you how many Priesthood sessions of General Conference we've had that basically yelled at men to stop practicing unrighteous dominion. I would very often speak with Empress after every general conference to see if I was guilty of any of these behaviors that I'd just been lectured about. Most of the time, no. But there were times when she said yes. And I'd make efforts to correct it. But do we hear much of that being given to women? It is common to believe that we now have split priesthood and "women's" sessions in General Conference because of "wokeness" entering into the Church. I don't think so. I've read the Ensign after conference. And I find it interesting how many times I hear similar "unrighteous dominion" type comments now being given to women. It may be veiled. But it is there. Before, it was more like "stop being so hard on yourselves." Now it is more like, "Women of the Church have a responsibility to..." And sometimes, it isn't all sunshine and roses. So, it if it was really giving in to wokeness, I'd say -- Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.

I find it amusing that the very first quote states that there is no official declaration either way, but then it proceeds to provide all the quotes on one side only. Yes, that was the title of the page. But to what end? And all pages like this always include the following quote as if it supports the idea (which it does not): This is explicitly stating that this is NOT a sound doctrine, and he only supposes that exceptions may exist. But as a rule, it is not provided for. * I always accept and admit that there has been no official declaration of the doctrine of progression between kingdoms. But this seems to be a binary answer. As such, I see the following: If false, let's not continue saying it could be the case, lest people get the wrong idea. If true, it is still a dangerous doctrine to be spreading. The doctrine of the Three Degrees was withheld from mankind prior to the Resurrection for a reason. Man was not ready for it. As it is, if this "open kingdoms" (to coin a phrase) doctrine is true, is man ready for it? It is all too easy to interpret this as: I cannot come to any logical thought that would conclude that teaching the doctrine of progression between kingdoms will result in anything other than this mentality. Even it if is true, what good can come of teaching it with the state of man today? Alma warns us about this very mindset. Whatever that "exception" may be (if there is one or a few) it should be obvious that there is a very strong tendency (and possibly, inevitability) to maintain our current attitudes towards obedience and faith (we can call it a "mindset") after we leave this life. And it is that "mindset" that will determine just how far we can go. If complete progress is truly open for all, then that means there really is no separation at all. So this doctrine of the three degrees is meaningless. I would think that if the doctrine of "open kingdoms" is true at all, it would be only in the rarest of circumstances (as Pres. Smith said in the quote above). If the kingdoms truly are open, then what does the doctrine of the three degrees even mean?

And lest we forget... I remember a movie about a bunch of pre-pubescent boys having a pow-wow about their celebrity objects of their affection. Three of the above were mentioned as alternatives to Ginger and Mary Ann. (No implication on present company, of course).

I’m not exactly sure why I dislike Grease so viscerally; but I do. I see it as a major step backward in the country’s morality; and its appeal to teenagers made it particularly insidious. ONJ was part and parcel of that culture (“Let’s Get Physical” was deeply problematic); and while I hope she finds repentance—I can’t say the world is a worse place for her absence.

And partially because our culture has come to be dominated by celebrities, so there's simply more celebrities to die today than there ever have been. And those celebrities take up more space in our mental and emotional make up than they ever did before.

Nurse Ratched.