Leaderboard

If she's food insecure, then that's a much more immediate concern to her than a drivers license. People who live like that often struggle to plan past their next meal. They live in fight/flight mode 24/7 and it's exhausting. The best thing you could do for her is try to get her linked up with a social worker if she doesn't already have one. Might be difficult without ID, but that's where I'd start. Social workers exist to help people who struggle to help themselves.

This is a very silly thread, but I think it could be fun. When I was in the scouts, I had a friend who came up with a hilarious joke. My IRL surname is actually quite close to Haggis. All you need to do is add a letter and do some slight rearranging and you have the name of a traditional scottish food. I was called Haggis for quite some time after this. The Shuu part comes from a pigeon dating simulator called "Hatoful Boyfriend" and is the name of this character: I don't remember the context as to why, but eventually these were both combined into the nickname "HaggisShuu" which has been my online username ever since. As for profile picture, I am big fan of the film Porco Rosso, and traditionally I have used this frame as my profile picture: However lately I fancied a change and was inspired by the short fat kid from shrek forever after which is my current profile picture. His relentless determination to get what he wants, and solid bond with his father was truly inspiring to watch on the big screen.

Dude awesome thread.

For the profile picture / avatar, you must begin with this comment ("Guest" in this interaction is @Carborendum's previous incarnation): ...and continue reading until the "sheathen" bit runs dry. (It seems to have taken a moment for folks to recognize that sheathen is just a female heathen.) It stuck around as a running joke across threads, and so I drew my avatar to match. (Yes, zil was me, but I clobbered that account back when I was having hard times, to prevent myself from using it, and apparently I did such a good job that it couldn't be recovered, so when I was ready to come back, I needed a new account, hence, zil2.) As for how I chose my user name... I inverted my name (the first time; the second time, I did as described above - added a 2). Sadly, the site's indexing appears to be broken, and badly enough that even google can barely find any instances of "sheathen". It's possible it took a couple weeks for the avatar change - which I might have made for this post (I drew the avatar): And because the site indexing is broken, I can't go back and relive all the fun referenced in this post: But I can see that we used to have more fun, per my previous opinion, and therefore we ought to have more fun again. I think we need to coax @Jamie123 to finish the adventures of Henry the vacuum cleaner: Which ended in a cliffhanger - ironically, at the bottom of a cliff (be sure to check out the second installment on page 2 of the thread).

For userid and passwords, I do a double-whammy of unlikely words. I use obscure words or proper nouns and purposefully misspell them. There is no dictionary in the world that would have any of my passwords. My userid is a misspelling of the stone known as carborundum. I came across it in a lab in college. We were trying to grind down some concrete to a specific dimension. And we were using a stone that resembled a volcanic rock (with all the nooks and crannies of the stones that looked like charred sponges). I asked the crew if anyone knew what this stone was made of that could withstand grinding away at concrete without seeming to wear itself at all. I can't be sure what a classmate said. He may have said it with the "u" sound, but what I heard was "carborendum." That was what stuck with me. (It is used as a grindstone because it has a hardness of 9 to 9.5 on the Mohs scale.) As the blogosphere got bigger and social media was a thing, I figured I needed a unique userid. None of the "add some number" to make it unique. I wanted it to be unique. So, I chose "Carborundum." But, of course, to make it truly unique, I purposefully misspelled it. And I like the sound better anyway. As I described the rock form as being like the porous stone, the crystal form is a sight to behold. So, I did a web search for images of carborundum and found my current avatar.

It's absolutely overdiagnosed. I think to some degree we are in a time where disorders may be some variation of "cool". I definitely believe in circumstances that are so extreme they cause real issues and need to be treated, but people are also trying to categorize every little thing. My concern is that we're so scattered on how to approach not just ADHD but attention in general that we are at a loss for that elusive best way to learn. A common sadness among teachers is that we can't really do much that is more active because kids have no traditionally-learned limits, so all the time is spent practicing limits and boundaries. "I would love for you to run around. Can you do it without destroying something or hitting someone?" That's a surprising amount of steps and skills to get to that point.

I want to echo this sentiment. Brigham was by no means a perfect man, and I am sure he would be willing to agree to that at least. He was stubborn, dedicated, could hold a grudge but when he forgave it was complete, he could be fiery and blunt in his rhetoric and could organise a group as well as anyone ever. He was a complex man with many great qualities and, as with all of us, flaws to go along with it. As for the specific incident itself, I personally do not feel troubled by it. Now I cannot say what should or should not trouble you. That is entirely a personal thing and some issues that do not even make my eyebrow twitch (say the variations in the 1st vision accounts) are devastating for others. And it is not wrong for them to feel that way. All I can do is explain why, or why not, something affects or comforts me. As a general rule I have never expected the Church, especially in general church meetings or Sunday school, to provide even a remotely comprehensive overview of church history. I always expected what we got was a highlight reel so to speak. Now the Church DID have a habit of not widely discussing some quite negative things for a while (a mistake I feel, but an understandable one) in favour of faith promoting stories and lessons that highlight Gospel principles. I understand this, and the more..... affecting historical information was always available and discussed by some. But I would no more expect, say, a General Conference talk or an institute lesson on this event than I would expect a Catholic seminary to spend any time talking about the Cathars. It is not, IMO, the Church's job to teach me much about the history outside the immediate restoration. That said, this is my own view. But it means I am not unhappy or upset if I find some reference in history that seems quite bad. I didn't expect everything to be shared, and if a story is not focused on teaching me to follow Christ or live the Gospel I see no reason to expect it to be brought up in any meeting. But as for the specifics of this event. Based on what some others have said, but focusing on just the transcript, this decision was made at the tail end of a long series of raids by a particular group of Native Americans that had resulted in much stolen property (of the near irreplaceable kind that could result in death or starvation) and them promising to continue. In this context Brigham has a duty of care to defend his people, and that includes armed resistance. Now if a group of 60 armed men are enough to stop the raids (as context implies) and at most 100 others are needed then it is unlikely a very large group. So it reads to me more like sending a local militia to deal with a violent criminal gang than an extermination as such. But based just on the minimal context I have this seems to me like a final decision to stop a group of attackers by any means necessary, and so to exterminate them. Of course the transcript from the link is a small part of the discussion but such an order does not trouble me. Basically if armed men are stealing from me, and have seemingly killed at least 2 of my people, then heading off to wipe out that group is justifiable. Harsh, but justifiable and in line with many older biblical commands to fight and kill other groups doing evil deeds. The first comparable event that springs to mind is Ammon and King Lamoni, where he killed a large number of raiders with seeming divine approval and I feel no qualms about that story. This is not to say, again, anyone else needs to feel comfortable with the decision. Or to think it is an unpleasant event. But it is not one I would be ashamed to admit to being involved in based purely on the tidbits we have here. If more information changes that context then that is fair, but as is... well I am not disturbed for the above reasons.

This was my primary thought. Back then, WalMart was a century away. There were no cops. There was no insurance company. GoFundMe was farther away than WalMart. Folks in Africa were never going to hear about it - let alone tomorrow morning on X. Stories like this one remind me that there are about a billion and one things for which I should be so grateful that I never have time to get off my knees for all the thanks I'm giving.

Are you sure? I mean, I gave some, but I don't see any indication that you noticed. Much better - thanks. I'm glad to see that the pros also found it impossible to give a good rendering of the text. So, it appears to be a war council trying to figure out how to keep the Saints from going extinct at the hands of their enemies. "J. Higbee the Indians r continually unfriendly killing our cattle & stealing horses we have lost between 50, 60 head. they cannot sustain themselves there. we drive our cattle down in the morning & bring them up at night. The Indians fired their guns at our boys & they found one [illeg] with 4 arrows another with a tomahawk in it they say the Mormons are no [illeg] they want to fight & will live on our cattle they say they mean to keep our cattle & got & get the other Indians to kill us." Do you know what it means when Higbee says "they cannot sustain themselves there"? That means unless something changes, those saints will all die. Why do you find this disturbing? Do you not see an endless tsunami of similar examples pouring forth from the old and new testaments? Not to mention any semi-serious reading of human history convinces us all that most human history is an endless cycle of conflict and war and bloodshed. Please - put your assumptions into words - why do you find it disturbing that BY talked about, even ordered, killing threats to the saints' existence? It's understandable that someone who is moving from a life spent in historical ignorance and assumption making, gets disturbed when confronted with uncomfortable truths and realities. It's quite common. It happens to everyone, actually. The lucky ones have it happen in early adulthood when they venture out into the world and begin interacting with different ideas and perspectives, and read more books. It's happening to you in the 3rd quarter century of your life, so it's easy to understand why you're disturbed. For contrast: I began learning all of this stuff 30 years ago in my mid-20's, as I ventured online to the early discussion forums and newsgroups. I sought out places where critic met apologist, and that's how I learned the seedier parts of our history, along with the apologetic defenses. If you'd like a similar experience, you can still go through the old FARMS Review of Books: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/msr/ It's been many years since I read all these, and I don't remember exactly if those books address what looks to be your main troubling topic, but these essays do address (in varying degrees of completeness, accuracy, and persuasiveness), all of the criticisms leveled against our church and it's members that were being made from the '80s through the 2010's. It's got a very handy search function. I see another unquestioned baseless assumption that you've probably made across your whole life. It looks something like this: "Everything there is to know about the church and it's history, I will learn from the church." Look deeply into yourself my friend. Have you been believing this lie? For, like, your whole life? You want apologetics? I prescribe introspection. You've been ignorant your whole life, and now you're being blindsided by harsh realities you've never encountered before. Troubles and doubts are normal and healthy. They won't go away with a quoted paragraph here or a friendly post on an anonymous message board there. I just gave you a great source to have your troubles and doubts resolved. Will you spend a decade at it like I did?

I have some thoughts, but they are nothing more than my own thoughts and therefore not worth much. So at least for now, I have some questions: Do you know why this is disturbing you? It has to be more than the brutality of past centuries, as there are far more brutal things described in the Bible and in history, but you didn't start a thread about those. It has to be more than learning some negative thing you never knew before, because as I'm sure you know, there's a whole lot more from the foundation of the world until this morning, that impacted far more people, that no one has informed you about (yet). I'm just thinking that you know full well, none of us were there. None of us can see or feel or experience the events the people described saw or felt or experienced. We can neither justify nor excuse their words and actions. I would hope you know that once a physical battle begins, no man is responsible for any other man's actions - some will go wild and some will maintain restraint to do only what they must. Etc. (Please read the following with the understanding that I am experiencing a genuine desire and curiosity to understand your "why" and your needs from this discussion. These questions are not intended to be derogatory, though they're often used that way. I just don't know how else to ask them.) Do you expect us to be able to answer the above questions? I'm assuming not. I'm assuming they're rhetorical. Do you want us to speak ill of Brigham Young? Do you want us to say you're right? Do you want us to be upset or to do something? What is it, exactly, that you're looking for? (Again, I'm sincerely trying to understand your deeper motivation, wishes, needs from the discussion, because until we can understand what's underneath the OP, we can't begin to have a conversation with you that might be satisfying to either party.) It appears from your reply that you believe someone should have known all this sooner and told you all about it at some prior point in your life. Do you know why you believe this? Have you considered who should have known? And whose responsibility it was to tell you, specifically? (By positions if not names.) I'm not trying to question your assumptions - I'm trying to get you to question your own assumptions - is it reasonable that there should always be someone who is entirely aware of all the meeting notes from the Church's history - I'm guessing there are thousands of them? Is it reasonable that they should be publicly proclaiming all the details in such a way as to ensure you, specifically, learn about them as early in your life as possible? Is this realistically possible? Is it actually important or urgent that this happen? I'm sorry if any of that came across as dismissive or derogatory. I don't mean it that way. From my perspective, the events described in your second link are in the past, and therefore, they are not something I can impact. It isn't useful for me to be upset over them, and judging them is not my job - it's God's. I understand that not everyone sees such things the way I do, hence the above questions hoping to draw out some replies that will help me understand. I may still not have any reply that can satisfy you, but the answers may still be useful...

At the very least, knowing which section to work on would help. I don't have time to decipher that whole page (and I'm pretty good at cursive, even old cursive - but dude wrote so small and "slurred" his writing). The version people talk about, maybe. When I went and read some of the documents I had (just common Church history volumes in a digital library), it seemed to me he was just using an expanded definition of "god", not claiming Adam and God the Father were one and the same person (which is what a lot of people say this theory claims, but I wasn't finding that - not that I care either way). Anywho, I don't believe we're capable of understanding the context - knowing some things about it, sure - understanding it? Not without revelation from God putting you into the mind of someone who lived it. Let God worry about brother Brigham. For me, there's only two ways to look at it: 1. God chose Brigham Young. In this case, any problems are God's to solve. 2. God didn't choose Brigham Young. In this case, we're in the wrong church. I know we're in the right Church, so I'm gonna let God figure out the past while I try to figure out how to live my covenants.

Before I respond, it would be helpful if there was a readable text to those minutes you linked to in the Church History Catalog. Even when we enlarge it to maximum magnification, the script is difficult to read. ******************************************************************* Yes, he probably was. But no more than any of us. And I'll show below how he probably had more stability, patience, and forgiveness than most of those around him. How many times have you seen a single news story or heard a single account from a friend or relative and got all up in arms about what should be done? It's a very human thing to do. We certainly do that with many of the stories of what appear to be murder, execution, and genocide in the Bible. But we need to remember that we don't have all the circumstances that led up to those events. You've shown that you're willing to call a Prophet "unstable" because you read a single account with very few details. So, let me fill in some details. There was quite a period of lead up to that military exchange. And Brigham did a LOT to calm the Saints' anger. And the Timpanogos Chief did much to calm the people of his tribe. But after a long train of abuses (on both sides) there was little peaceable sentiment between the two parties. And eventually, several LDS leaders made efforts to convince Brigham to essentially wage war. Brigham had tolerated many deadly exchanges trying to calm the Saints and prevent war. But only after many of his "senior staff" entreated him (as governor of the territory, not necessarily as prophet) he acceded to their demands. Let me say this again. He prevented war until all of his closest advisors were all but demanding it. Does that seem unstable to you? Yes, the horrible things (which tend to happen in a war) happened during this attack. But don't take things like this out of context. And don't defame a respected historical figure without understanding all the circumstances leading up to an event.

Um, @Carborendum? This is a fake. It uses random video from multiple sources coupled with an AI-generated Thomas Sowell voice, and an AI-generated script. I have to admit, I was a full 7 minutes through the video before I got suspicious enough to look deeper. This is an excellent warning to everyone in the human race: Be automatically wary of everything you see online. Especially stuff from people you like, saying things you'd think they would say.

Brøderbund is the software company that created the Carmen Sandiego games. And Mordor is, well, Mordor. I downloaded gimp and learned just enough to make a matching avatar. I haven’t used it since. When the forum software changed and we had to upload our avatars again I had to first download it from the Wayback Machine. As long as we’re talking about old times, who wants to discuss the chat feature?

About 20 years ago I was trying to join a Transformers fan forum. It was a very large, very popular forum at the time, and had also been around for a while. Cue me discovering the hard way that most of the usernames I'd been using on other forums were already taken. In a fit of frustration, I picked a character from some fan fiction I'd been writing at the time. It worked. Some of the users there were also on a few other forums I was going to at the time, so I kept the same username across each forum. As far as the picture goes, it was one of several dozen pre-prepared images on one forum I went to a long, long time ago that we could use as our avatars. It was so long ago that I don't even remember the forum I got it from, and said forum likely doesn't exist anymore anyway.

Salt Lake and neighboring valleys are also home to at least 7 of the people on this board, you know, in case you wanted to attempt to meet any virtual person in real life. You could plan for 2027, when the Salt Lake Temple open house is scheduled... (At least, I think it's 2027. I highly recommend against trying to come during the Olympics - I fully expect the Lord to burn Salt Lake City to the ground during that event (presumably He'll preserve the temple, though)... )

Mirkwood is the forest of giant spiders and elves in The Hobbit. It is one of my favorite parts of the story. It was the name I selected on my first forum (the now defunct Rush Message Board) and what I have used pretty much everywhere ever since. I wear these two patches on my body armor under my uniform. I like boonie hats, sometimes I have a beard and I have a suppressed AR15. It kind of matches who I am.

Gen Alpha LDS snarky teens were going wild with the AI studio Ghibli generator. I had my pick: By the way, that AI generator was pretty cool. I turned some of our favorite family pictures into Ghibli art:

Interesting story, apart from the odd tiktok video where you see somebody filming themselves oppose the first presidency as a "protest". I've yet to see anybody oppose an individual.

I'm glad to see the basic human right of free speech is getting a lot of notice in the UK. How many people are arrested every week in the UK for stuff they post online? The solution to bad speech is more speech. It's not trying to force people not to say things disagreeable.

How about the time BY snuck up on a passed out drunkard and chopped his head off. Oh wait, that was a different prophet. Or how about BY trying to slit his own son's throat because he thought God told him to. Oh wait, that was a different prophet as well. Perhaps that they were all prophets is the only context that matters. That of course won't fly with those outside the Church but with some things that's all there is because sometimes what God does (or wants done) flies in the face of all mortal reasoning. I can already hear the retort: "But God actually told them to do those things!" Well how can we know what God did and didn't tell BY to do? I don't think any of us is in a position to pass judgement on him. If you were simply looking for a way to explain such things to those not of our faith, I wish you well. But for those of our faith it really shouldn't require apologetics.

Was Brigham Young Unstable? I would not assume so but why would it matter? Where in the scripture does it say God calls prophets from the cream of the crop? It does not. In fact it often says he calls the weak and unlearned and the foolish. If you get your apologetic answers then great... But if you don't.... if you only find more and more negative things about Brigham Young what are you going to do? Will you get to a point that you decide that you know better then God whom he should call? Because that is Pride which is a very deadly sin. Perhaps instead of looking through the history books and making judgements on how wicked and evil people where and question how God could possibly work with them... maybe instead we should all look in a mirror and say "Thank you God for being willing to work with such and evil and wicked person as I am." Of course those are just my thoughts on the subject and I am some random guy on the internet. Take what works for you (if anything) and discard the rest

Absolutely agree. I've seen nothing but condemnation for this unconscionable act from like-minded folks.

How my work weeks often look

I'm ok with (more than ok with, I'm enthusiastically in favor of) people reading the history of the brownshirts and leveling comparisons against whomever they wish. When it fits, it's an indication something needs to change. This doesn't fit: lol "secretive": https://www.ice.gov/outreach-programs/citizens-academy This article is a poorly reasoned hit piece, full of inflammatory language, written by people who are not in favor of the law when it comes to laws being enforced against folks they know. Imagine being mad that a government agency is so transparent, they actually put time/effort/budget into teaching whoever wants to learn all about what they do. Imagine refusing to actually attend a class, and then writing a hit piece against it. You wanna know how to turn @Phoenix_person into a fan of ICE? Have him do a ride-along with ICE agents. Similar to this phenomenon: In related news, I've been something of an afficionado of my local law enforcement citizens academies. I've attended 3 - local small town, Colorado Springs, and my county's academies. Pretty interesting things. I found all three of them to be genuine attempts at outreach to the communities served by these agencies. All three were welcoming and receptive of criticisms/complaints/issues/suggestions. I volunteered for a taser demonstration at one, because I honestly didn't know what I thought about police using tasers. I am a fan after having one used on me. I should say, I've attended 4 - but the one put on by my local government was SO BORING I stopped going after the 2nd session. Sitting through a budget appropriations meeting is boring enough. But sitting through a class about how they do budget appropriations? It was like torture. So to answer your question, no, @Phoenix_person, not like that. Drawing analogies between ICE citizens academies and the hitler youth or the brownshirts is sort of the height of nonserious accusation that folks have come to expect from the hysterical manipulative left. If 2025 is supposed to be a rebuilding year, I think figuring out how to be better at making ludicrous analogies isn't going to get you the results you're hoping for.

ICE is making arrests without warrants and deporting people without due process, and Trump is calling it legal. The actions of the SS were considered lawful actions by the German government, and they didn't start with herding people into trains. They started with things like this: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/05/10/trump-stephen-miller-habeas-corpus-constitution/83554334007/ You mean like this? https://www.immigrantdefenseproject.org/idp-and-partners-release-briefing-guide-on-ices-secretive-citizen-academy-programs-with-documents-uncovered-through-foia-litigation/ I agree that there it's important to look for red flags in both major political parties, and my disdain for the DNC shouldn't be a secret at this point. I don't know that David Hogg would be my pick to lead a far left reform movement, mainly because his gun views align more with liberal Dems than leftists, and that could swifly become a problem in today's political climate. Trump has created a lot of 2A enthusiasts on my side of the fence.

I have thought over your post about justice that was askew from my thinking. I have long associated justice as an enviable consequence rather than punishments or maledictions for bad behavior and blessings or benedictions for good behavior. My thinking was along the lines that justice is an independent principle that G-d could utilize but not control. After deeper considerations on this subject, I have determined that my thinking was incomplete and easily leads to misunderstandings. The problem that I had to resolve is a determination of what is justice and how is justice defined. There is a relationship between the words justice and judgement. There is possibly a relationship between justice and consequence but the two are not the same. I will now put forward that there is also a relationship between G-d and justice. That justice cannot exist unless there is a G-d. In essence that in order for someone to not believe in G-d it is inevitable that they cannot believe in Justice. The foremost example of this is Satan and his disbelief or rejection of G-d forces a belief of or in injustice. But there us much more to justice. In order for there to be justice there has to be law. It is through the law that G-d is able to bring justice. Associated with law is the ordinance of the law and the covenant of the law. This is where justice and mercy are joined – because G-d, out of his mercy provides the law. Then it is by obedience to the law and the covenant of law that one enters into and accepts that brings blessings or benefits. Transgression of the law carries a punishment which is a loss of blessings. We are to understand that without obedience to Celestial Law one cannot have or receive of the Celestial blessings or glory. The other things that we need to understand is that there is no kingdom, place or space in which there is no Law. This means that even in Satan’s kingdom that is called “Outer Darkness” there are laws that define that kingdom that are provided through the mercy of G-d. If there was no G-d there would be no kingdom, no place or any space. Scripture tells us that the judgments of G-d are just and true. I believe this would indicate that when be stand before G-d for judgment that truth will be established according to the law we have made covenant to live and be judged by. This truth will be known by all the are sealed by the law to the glory of the covenant we make. This is why be become one with G-d and Christ and the Saints through the Celestial law, ordinances and covenants. It is Celestial law that is the glory of G-d and all those that are obedient to Celestial law. It is Celestial law that defines mercy – not just to those that abide by Celestial law but those that are obedient to whatever law they receive because of Celestial mercy. The Traveler

I agree. Especially as the second half of the quote is, to paraphrase, if we were in their situation we would be like that too. And they would be perfectly reasonable in ours. As for the topic at hand, skimming the thread it is a hard topic to truly get your head around. Understanding why God would permit, let alone require, such a rule is hard and I don't mind saying that I am uncomfortable with it having been a thing. For myself, I manage by remembering a few key points. First, whether I agree with the policy or not Brigham Young as the Prophet did have the authority to make such a declaration and have it be binding. He as President of the Church was authorised to do so. I like to think he would not do so without divine guidance but his authority was there. And once bound it would take a similar prophetic decision to unbind it. So even if Brigham made a mistake (which I do not endorse truly) once done and entrenched it would be hard to reverse. Second, Brigham young is quoted as saying that the ban was never intended to last forever so even from the start it was taught as temporary. And third, the world of the Mid 19th Century mid west is very different to mine now. Race relations were a different thing and Slavery was commonplace worldwide. The needs of the church were different. None of this makes me glad it happened, or any less glad the practice ended. I wish it had sooner. As for official discussions, the most official statement from Church Leaders I know of (First Presidency statements about the priesthood ban - FAIR) reinforces that the ban was never forever. The 1949 statement does suggest that the people affected are descendants of Cain, and does state that our pre-mortal life has something to do with it. It does not however endorse the idea that the reason for the ban was pre-mortal sin, just that our pre-mortal life affects our mortal one and that those spirits who would be born under the ban thought it was worth it to come. Even this is not definitive as to the whys. It really is for me a matter of faith. Of all the topics in church history this and Polygamy are the big ones. I am glad the ban was lifted before I was born, and I am glad that church leaders are willing to say "we don't know why it was done, but it was and we try to trust God in that". Any apologetics for the ban will feel hollow to someone hurt by it and I get that.

I tend to be more of a listener than a talker. And I have also lurked on most boards for a significant period of time before joining them, including both this one and the one for which I originally used this name. The picture I made, using a couple creative commons images as templates, to go along with the name. And what I've heard about the Florida Man stories is that we hear so much about Florida men because their freedom of information laws make it particularly easy to find the weird crimes if someone's looking for something to write about.

Concatenation of my last name and profession. A nickname that stuck during my first year of residency internship. The image of Lurch is a nod to my personality.

My user name is reflective of my main hobby. Model trains. It is the brand name of the trains I run and collect.

Username: Don't recall why. I've used it for almost two decades in more than one location I like the look of leaves. Yup.

I think it is for a lot of us. It’s a virtual ward for me.

The application of my particular profession has taken me many places far from my home. Two things have always been of upmost importance in my travels. First to seek out and spend time with the Saints that are building Zion in those far-off places. Second (most important) is to find my way back home. My username is a reflection of both my physical and spiritual life. Growing up in Provo Utah in the back yard of Brigham Young University (BYU) I was shielded a great deal from things non-LDS throughout the rest of the world. Many professors and their families were a part of my daily experiences. Hugh Nibley was one of the more influential individuals I grew up knowing. Even in my youth I was fascinated with Brother Nibley’s concept of Abraham as a stranger in a strange land. I have identified myself in the mortal experience as the stranger in a strange land. I have never felt to belong to this earth but rather to some other place that is greatly different. I am the traveler far from my home. My only purpose here is to seek out Saints building Zion and to find a way back to where I belong. My profile picture is a device that combines a sextant, star chart, sundial and compass – It is my private symbolic Liahona. This forum is a safe harbor for me. The Traveler

This is my second name. I’m a huge University of Florida fan, and their mascot is an alligator. My first name here was “MormonGator”. The profile pic is an alligator who jumped on boat and it looked like it was waving. It did not happen to me, I found it on a random site somewhere.

I believe this is a semantic argument. From a layman's perspective, that is essentially all it was. Consider the following. DIFFERENCES From your link: I don't see a whole lot here that says that it was any different from the common flu in any meaningful sense. From a practical perspective, it was a severe flu. You can pick nits all you want. And you'd probably be right. But from a layman's perspective of the effects for over 90% of the population, these items listed above indicate that the effects we see as patients resemble the flu with heightened levels of severity in several ways. And the level of severity is not sufficient to really treat this with much more scrutiny than a common influenza virus. These are good points. But they are outliers. They primarily affect those who already have health issues especially those who are already hospitalized. And some claim that was only for people who got the vaccine. (This is unconfirmed, of course. But we really don't know.) But the flu also causes more dangerous symptoms in the elderly and those who are already weakened or hospitalized. But the "more symptoms" are simply "different". Whether they are "more deadly" is part of my conceding that it was a "stronger than average level." These few differences may or may not be enough to induce the average person to consider additional protocols. But I consider the shutdown of the entire world to be overkill. And the grift that ran rampant throughout the entire era is enough for me to say: That was too much! Wouldn't it be great if it were possible to actually get the real numbers of deaths and hospitalizations so we could compare? That would tell us volumes about how much of it was hype and how much was necessary. But because of the way they funded everything, the level of grift during those years caused it to be greatly exaggerated. So, we may never know.

I see no reason to even think about "I never knew you" - first, it's clearly wrong, and second, Joseph Smith said it's supposed to be "ye never knew me". This leaves us with two primary points of focus: 1. The previous verse says they prophesied, cast out devils, and did many "wonderful works" in Christ's name. And yet Christ said they worked "iniquity". The faith-only Christians will wave this away with words about the characters having tried to work and earn their way into heaven and not having faith. But consider "thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" - it has become common for folks to understand this not only as using God's name as a vulgarity, but also using it as a facade for evil, or using it without authority (that is, without permission, without having been called and ordained / set apart). The verses combined lend support to @Traveler's theory as to what the Lord meant. 2. Continuing with the JST rendering, how do scriptures tell us we come to know Christ? With variations on this theme: Whatever the folks were doing in Matthew 7:22, they weren't doing what Moroni 7:48 describes - this must be the case, or Christ is a liar, and we know Christ isn't a liar. "Ye never knew me" and "I never knew you" and "I never authorized you" (aka "you used my name in vain") all fit with Moroni 7:48 - they didn't pray, weren't filled with charity, weren't true followers of Christ, had not become the sons of God, were not like Him, and did not even see Him as He is (which is why they were like, "but wait, we did all these great things in your name, what do you mean, 'depart'?").

Looking at the passage: I think it's referring to people who say they believe in Christ but don't practice what he taught. If only those who enter into the kingdom of Heaven are those did the will of the father, surely "I never knew you" means something closer to "I never saw you following the commandments". Somebody may trick themselves into believing they did follow Christ because they didn't truly understand Christ, which is why the JST says "you never knew me." My mind is drawn to Harold Camping, who tried to predict the end of the world twice and managed to drum up quite a bit of international support in the early 2010's. He prophesied in the name of Christ. He's likely done many wonderful works. Likewise, The many mega church phonies like Kenneth Copeland pretend to cast out demons in the name of Christ also. But does Christ know them as his true disciples? I doubt it. This is just my interpretation of course, but given this passage transitions into the parable of the wise foolish house builders. It seems to me a passage about how obedience deepens your relationship with Christ, not something with legitimises authority in the eyes of Christ.

I have long held the concept that if we are to only consider what happens to a person between their birth and death there is no way we could come to the conclusion that G-d is just, fair or even merciful or that such principles have any actual possibility. My conclusion is that there is of necessity something before birth and something after death (and before the resurrection) in order for justice or mercy to exist. The Book of Mormon tells us that G-d is both just and true. The Book of Mormon also tells us that all “good things” come from G-d and that if anything is good that it must be that it came from G-d. Since G-d is just, I must assume that justice is always good. The opposite of just is injustice – which I assume to always be bad or evil. The Book of Mormon also add one other concept that I do not see in any other religion. That concept is that in order for there to be mercy – the demands justice must properly be fulfilled first. This logic of the restored LDS theology is marvelous and wonderful – I do not understand why anyone that believes in Christ would not immediately embrace the truth of it. Even if they were not baptized as a Latter-day Saint that they would believe and embrace this principle to be a necessary part of their faith. The Traveler

Indeed they do... It's been my experience that Women are no more to be mindless sheeple blindly following prophetic council then Men are... But it has also been my experience that Women have a greater tendency to deflect bad News they give then Men do. For this case imagine a young Woman who has no interest in the Young Man perusing her. Instead of telling the young man "You do not have a chance in Hell with me." and deal with the potentially very violent reaction. (Totally understandable in my opinion) She will punt to whatever excuse she can that passes the blame. "Oh you didn't serve a mission... I can't possibly marry someone that didn't go." Thus redirecting the rejection anger of the Young Man from her to the Church. If it happens enough then the Young Man blames the church for his relationship failures.

1. Sure. It’s just a question of how seriously they take the idea of temple covenants. 2. I [would like to] think that most mature, reasonably-well-adjusted LDS folks can reconcile the ideas that a) a lot of what passes for “happiness” outside of LDS circles, actually isn’t; b) people outside the LDS Church can nevertheless be genuinely pretty happy folks; and c) LDS covenants and precepts, properly lived and applied, nevertheless do offer a superior opportunity for sustainable stability and health and happiness to what is generally available outside of the Church. And while statements that “there’s no place for x here” is dangerously and probably overused as a general principle—I nevertheless feel reasonably comfortable in saying that there is no place for a sense of entitlement to a sexual relationship, in the LDS Church.

This would seem to be the most likely explanation: Other possible explanations, like global conspiracies involving hundreds or thousands of people colluding to hide the truth, would seem to be less likely.

So just to make sure I understand. You claim people have realized the Covid vaccines were "far less safe than we were assured". Your source for this claim is the linked apnews article. Is that correct? Because if it is, you're not really making your case. The article is about a cautionary pausing from some countries based on some things that could be issues, maybe for children. There's a difference between pausing for some people based on caution, and "far less safe". I mean, yes, the administration and Faucci were messaging "100% and 100% effective" like the liar-liar-pants-on-fire they were. The massive push to get children vaccinated flew in the face of the data that kids were the least likely to get it or have complications. So many things were done wrong, some of it had to be intentional. But your claim was "covid vaccines were far less safe than we were assured", and that's simply not true. Not by a long shot. Your AP news article doesn't make the case, and although I've looked for years, no credible source does either.

Well, to be honest, I still haven't realized any of that jargle, even after looking seriously for something to substantiate it for years. I mean, the vaccines were far less effective than we hoped (and the government pushed). And it's now becoming more accepted that 'vaccine' isn't an accurate description of it - it's better thought of as a 'therapeutic'. But far less safe? What's your data for that? The thing has gone into literally billions of arms. Every nation on earth has a health service or ministry or center of some sort - you'd think it would be easy to find. The negative impacts are indeed 'told', but the last I checked, it was a similar rate to any other sort of related therapeutic. I mean, you can't find it in the December '24 House report, full of Republicans more than willing to pin dirt like that to Biden. It claimed "The COVID-19 Vaccine, While Largely Safe and Effective, Had Adverse Events That Must be Throughoughly Investigated" It's chart, when compared with the billions of doses given, is pretty weak sauce: With 5.6 billion doses given worldwide, 10,000 deaths means the vaccine is safer than driving a car. You've got a better chance of being hit by lightning, twice, than having a serious negative covid vax event. Especially considering that any lying agenda driven yayhoo was able to submit an entry to VAERS on the topic.

The "disorder" part of ADD or ADHD may be a disorder, or may just be a way of existing. It seems like there are a bazillion of us with ADD/ADHD who are out just living our best lives the best we can, just like everyone else, but with some different coping mechanisms and learned habits and methods to make life work. The diagnoses themselves are probably waaaay over diagnosed with our youth, especially boys. "Sit still and pay attention" is a nice skill for a boy to develop, but it's often not the best way to learn.

There are mentally ill people, and there are scammers. There are lazy people, and there are low-iq people without the brain power to understand. There are entitled people and folks with PTSD who are struggling with being abused by people they should have been able to trust. Here's the thing - we often can't tell who is who by just looking at them or even working with them. The line from that hymn nailed it: Who am I to judge another when I walk imperfectly? In the quiet heart is hidden sorrow that the eye can’t see. Scripture is pretty clear on things too: So we're left with a good reasonable basis for not judging, a scriptural commandment to not judge, and a very reasonable question about what help looks like and what it doesn't look like. - Giving someone help who could do it themselves isn't help, it's enabling their laziness. That's not charity, that's not love, that's not respecting someone's agency, that's being a sucker. - Giving someone help who can't do it themselves is help, is charity, and we're commanded to do it, and if we don't and get all judgey about it we're going to hell. It can be impossible to tell which sort of person we're dealing with. So we take our best guess, do our best, and try to live with the consequences. I'm pretty sure that while @Phoenix_person and his folks' hearts are in the right place, subsidizing single motherhood with taxpayer dollars is the most harmful thing white folk have done to the black community since slavery. Paying people to keep fathers out of the home is evil, and has ruined lives and increased all the bad things these programs seek to prevent. That said, each of us will personally be judged by how we've treated the lost and the least of us, and if we screw it up it'll have eternal consequences. So do your best and make up your mind and pray for guidance to do the right thing.

I hear you. Is this because of lack of knowledge/understanding? Or is it because she is intellectually challenged? If she simply doesn't know how, you go one route. If she's intellectually challenged, take another route. To clarify: When I say "intellectually challenged" she may not fit the clinical definition of "retarded" (IQ below 75). But if she's on the lower end of normal (80-85) she simply may not have learned a lot of what you and I take for granted. So, the first thing is to try to educate her (with a lot of patience). But if she's always been this way, then one problem you'll have is that she's told herself "I just can't..." Whether you think you can or you think you can't, you're right. So, you'll have that to work through. And it will not be easy. A lifetime of programming has told her "I can't." You're not going to deprogram that overnight. Something similar to this has happened to the young lady that my wife and I have been helping. She basically needs to be walked through the process. We think it's easy to just print out a form. But she doesn't have a printer. We think it is easy to just look up a govt. bldg. on Google. But she can't spell. Sometimes she can't remember words like "vital records." And she may not quite understand the directions that Google gives from her GPS. We take all these things for granted. But if she's never been taught... Every person needs to make a judgment call about how much we can help, and when we have reached the limit. At some point, when we've really done what we can to help out, we need to make a call. And each call is situation specific. There is no rule. It's just judgment. And the limit for you will be different than it is for other. Put your own mask on first, then help the next person. Ponder and pray for guidance. Then understand your proper priorities. ALSO: If you think that all social links have been exhausted, it may be time to bring government into it as @Phoenix_person said. While I'd always encourage that as a last resort only, it may be that this situation is appropriate for government safety nets. But beware of one thing, the number of people who are able to ween themselves off of it, while a significant number, is still pretty low. The fact that she may never get off of it is a reason to try to avoid it. But if it is the last resort...

The answer to this question is yes -- yes, this scripture does help us more further understand that without faith it is impossible to please God, and that we will not be able to claim ignorance and still be saved. I often think of agnostics and atheists when reading these verses. An agnostic, after death, will ultimately claim ignorance after death, "If I had 'known' (temporal evidence) I would have believed." And will expect to be saved without pleasing God through faith. Once they realize they outsmarted themselves they then will experience the gnashing of teeth. I also find this verse interesting because it ultimately deals with the after life, and not our mortal life. There have been many of our brothers and sisters who have perished without knowing who Jesus Christ is, thus salvation was never declared unto them. Ultimately, they are ignorant, and upon these the Lord's mercy is extended (Mosiah 15:24). In their mortal life they were ignorant, but the gospel will be preached unto them in the spirit world -- so ultimately -- no man/woman is saved in ignorance.

This can be done in a great many ways outside of what we refer to as serving a mission. I have helped reactivate several people over the years since returning from my mission. I feel like they are bigger "successes" then what happened on my mission.