Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 07/18/22 in Posts

  1. I agree with this. As far as I can tell, Alex Jones is a liar who traffics in people's naivete and ignorance. But that view is fueled by media reports. I have never listened to the man, so I can't say with any confidence what the man believes or preaches. I'm not going to take the word of the likes of CNN. As mirkwood pointed out, no believing Latter-day Saint can deny the existence of conspiracies. For that matter, no reasonably intelligent human being with any amount of exposure to human society can deny it. But believing in the general existence of harmful, evil conspiracies and believing in some particular claim of conspiracy are entirely different matters. By its nature, a conspiracy is secret. That's pretty much baked into the definition of the word. Successful conspiracies generally do not become known. If they do, it's because they're old and defunct (e.g. the Great Light Bulb Conspiracy, aka the Phoebus Cartel) or they're so powerful that they don't care about being known (e.g. OPEC). You may have noticed the overlap between conspiracies and cartels. This is not coincidental. Consider this hypothetical: A group of Illuminati-minded people with the money, ambition, connections, and raw power to attempt an invasion of governments worldwide form a conspiracy, what the Book of Mormon calls a "secret combination". If their conspiracy involves too many people, it risks becoming known; everyone who knows about it is a potential liability. So they play their cards close to the vest, with only a few people at the top of the pyramid really knowing what's up. They use puppet actors and corporations to set up their conditions so that it becomes exceedingly difficult to trace their activities back to them. As they grow in power, they gain control of the media and other means of information dissemination, such that they can more directly control what information gets out. How would such a conspiracy ever be discovered? Only one way: A member of the conspiracy would have to betray the secret and make it public knowledge. But such a person would not be believed without evidence, and of course that evidence would be quickly covered up by the conspiracy members. Any information that made it out would be dealt with by the media and governmental elements controlled by the conspiracy. The only other way such a conspiracy could be uncovered is by a mole making his way in, collecting information, and then exposing the conspiracy. This becomes more and more unlikely the longer the conspiracy remains and continues consolidating its power. Such a mole would never make it to the courts. He would be dealt with, by which I mean he would be disposed of. Sound familiar? Of course it does. It's mobocracy. It's the Cosa Nostra. It's evil people with wicked intent to gain power and money. Such has it always been. Given the secretive nature of such conspiracies, is it any wonder that Jeffrey Epstein's supposed (and very convenient) suicide is greeted with rolled eyes and doubt? If it looks, acts, and smells like conspiracy, isn't that evidence? But of course, without truly damning evidence, the majority won't believe such a thing. It's far too easy to make up some conspiratorial explanation. In any case, such evidence is unlikely to be found. Why do you suppose that Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, and other men (including men not named Bill, e.g. the UK's Prince Andrew) involved with Epstein have not been connected to him in more than a cursory manner? Are we to believe that all of these rich and powerful men with known attachments to illicit sex were simply at the wrong place at the wrong time and are innocent bystanders? I believe few of the conspiracy allegations I hear, but I absolutely believe that such conspiracies exist, even deeper and more evil than the Illuminati conspiracy theorists would have us believe. There are one or two members of this forum who disbelieve that people are ever bad, but I am among those who disagree. People have a deep capacity for evil if they choose to exercise it. Many have no qualms whatsoever about selling their fellow men into slavery, destroying liberty, and so forth, as long as they get the power and/or money and/or sex they crave. In such a world, conspiracies are a sure thing.
    6 points
  2. https://www.truthorfiction.com/anyone-being-investigated-by-the-fbi-is-not-qualified-to-be-president-of-the-united-states-trump-quote-is-likely-misattributed/
    5 points
  3. After several weeks, I feel great (after 6 months of chem and radiation, I had forgotten what it feels like to be myself). Follow up tests are showing no cancer remaining, so the chemo and radiation were very successful. Now the surgeon is giving me a choice. Stick with the tried and true treatment plan and cut the offending part of my gut out, because we know through years of experience what the risk of recurrence is (pretty small). Or forego surgery (a less tested and less understood course of action) and see what happens. The idea of skipping surgery is, naturally, appealing. But I'm just not sure I want to take on the uncertainty. If the cancer were to come back, there would be the regret of not having done everything we could now to prevent recurrence. If we do surgery and it comes back, well, then we shake our fist at God until we get it out of our system, then submit to His will. If only there was a way to see into the future, but there isn't, so I feel inclined to go with the known risk rather than the unknown risk and have surgery. It's a bit of a tough decision, but that seems best with what we know now.
    5 points
  4. I'm going to go ahead and throw a few things into the arena. Some of them might surprise you if you're aware of my political preferences. Maybe not. But here goes anyway. I don't understand why we are looking to the scriptures for insight into when "life" begins. Biologically speaking, a fertilized ovum is a living organism. I don't see any room for debate on that, and it has nothing to do with a spirit entering the body. We could even argue that it was alive before fertilization. So the whole discussion about when "life" begins doesn't have a lot of interest to me. In order to justify the line of inquiry, you are pretty much force to claim some kind of difference between "alive" and "life." Which brings up a lot of interesting academic discussions--somewhere along the line you have to make an arbitrary decision of what constitutes "life." Does that require permanent residence of a spirit? sentience? free thought? moral agency? Regardless of which arbitrary point you choose is going to come with myriad moral implications on how you treat other humans, animals, plants, etc. And to my knowledge, there's nothing in scripture that really guides where to draw that line. More to the point, the demarcation between "alive" and "life" is wholly uninteresting to me (outside of speculative curiosity). In my life, I've only encountered a very few reasons to warrant pursuing the topic at all. First is people who have lost children to miscarriages and stillbirth. My heart goes out to these people. They are seeking comfort following a tragedy. These I encourage to believe whatever brings them comfort. The only other major reason I've encountered for pursuing justification for their stance on abortion. Some wish to claim life as early as possible to justify bans against abortion. To these, I say "get lost" (but in a kind way). I don't have a favorable stance towards codifying religious dogma into civil law. To those that wish to use a later start to life to say that abortion is ok, I say "shut up" (but in a kind way). Why should it be any more acceptable to extinguish something living simply because it hasn't yet started "life." (It isn't, by the way) I'd be interested in knowing if there are any other ways in which it would be impactful to know when a spirit enters a body. I can't really come up with any, although I'm sure there are some.
    5 points
  5. I have considered this passage as well. What would we gain from knowing the answer? Also, the Voice of the Lord could be the Holy Spirit speaking by divine investiture of authority (similar to the angel in the Book of Revelation), and could have received instructions in advance. I don't have a for sure opinion either way other than that I think the knowledge, while interesting, would probably not be very useful.
    5 points
  6. I generally watch Fox News Sunday and the George Stephenopolis (sp?) show, so I have a general idea of what media is perceiving the news to be. Imagine my surprise when I stumble upon an interview of former Sen. Romney by Bret Baire (sp?). It was nicely and respectfully done. People may have varying views on Romney's policies and success, but he got the relationship of church and state right. Further, one aspect of LDS doctrine I find attractive and intriguing is the belief that the U.S. Constitution is inspired.
    4 points
  7. In my new career as a secondary school teacher I spent my first year teaching Civics to 12th graders. I tried to stay as neutral and objective as possible, empowering these emerging adults in the development of their own views. However, since I work in a private school I did not have to teach the jaundiced view that America was never great or that its Constitution is just some outdated document drafted by white men. We hit the themes of freedom of speech and religion pretty hard. I enjoyed it much and hope the students left wiser and more confident than they came in. This year I will have 7th graders for U.S. History. Perhaps the influence will be even greater.
    4 points
  8. Carborendum

    School Supplies

    Both. When I went to public school a lifetime ago, we supplied almost everything. Notebooks/folders/binders Backpacks Calculators Personal Pencil sharpeners Standard writing and/or graph paper. Pencils were treated the same way. The school supplied: Paper that was non-standard A wall-mount pencil sharpener. Crafts supplies. Refills for paper and pencils were available. But they were in case we happened to run out. It was not to be our standard supply. I have no idea what the standard is today since we've homeschooled or private schooled all our kids.
    4 points
  9. We appear, in this thing, to share the same thoughts. I didn't vote for Trump in 2016. I did vote for him because I started gaining sympathy/empathy for a man: 1) Who wasn't a full time politician. Who actually worked in the workforce all his years before running for president. 2) Who was targeted by "all" media (even those who were considered "neutral" outlets). When I looked into every case I could find facts upon it was easy to see a bias, not truth, or twisted truth. 3) The continued assault to impeach him with no evidence but simply to seek to find anything and everything they could to remove him. When people are misrepresenting, fault finding, trying to dig up anything and everything they can against someone -- my mind thinks -- there is something this guy is doing right otherwise the "liberal" side wouldn't keep attacking him. 4) The guy brought out one of the most heinous pedophilia syndicates, and we know all about his visits (but no charges). YET, for some reason the list of people on who visited (excluding Trump -- maybe some others but I don't know) -- are being totally hid from the public. They should be scrutinized just as much as Trump and we should be seeing court dates of those involved that they know were potential "statutory rape' cases. I could go on but this is enough. I would probably vote for him also again, because if the Dems hate him so much he must be doing something right for America -- constitutionally.
    4 points
  10. Unless there's a big revelation of real, substantive malfeasance by Trump, I will vote for him if he receives the Republican nomination. I'm not a huge fan of his, except when compared with my feelings toward any national-level Democrat.
    4 points
  11. I admit that I don't really get the lionization (here literally) of Trump. I believe it's largely a reflexive reaction to the media's unceasing drumbeat of hatred toward the man. I myself, no huge fan of Trump, have felt the itch to get behind the guy and support him much more than I normally would, just because the leftist hatred of him is soooooooooooo far overboard. My rational faculties are hoping that Trump does not run in 2024, but some vindictive and grudge-holding part of my being secretly wants to see it as a way to give a big middle finger to those who despise Trump supporters.
    4 points
  12. Freedom of speech is a right that needs to be protected just like the other rights we have... Also like our other rights it is not absolute, it has limits. Those limits are when it comes against the rights of others. You can't harm others. The common example given is Yelling Fire in a crowded theater. Other cases are statements that are harmful to reputation and whatnot. Freedom of speech is one of the few rights that have an exception to this limit. That exception is TRUTH. If the Theater is crowded... and it is on fire... then we want you to be yelling fire even if by doing so you cause some harm... Truth can be harmful to people's reputation. We can and should tell the truth even if it hurts... If we do not want to be hurt by truth then we should live in such a way that it can not hurt us. Now I have not followed this case beyond what has been presented here. But if you accuse someone of being a 'Crisis Actor' that is something you better be ready to prove because that is an attack on that person's reputation. In the case where causing others to take action that hurts (aka the Theater example) that can get murky fast, but it is not unreasonable to think that with greater power/influence comes greater accountability. But that greater accountability needs to be equality applied. You don't get to go after commentators/talking heads/politicians that say things you do not like for causing harm while ignoring the commentators/talking heads/politicians that say things you do like that cause harm. It is unwise to protect one group because you "like/agree" with them and strip the protection from those you "do not like/agree" with. Because the day will come that you find yourself in disagreement with the group you protected. What are you going to do when they turn on you and you helped them become too powerful to stop? That is just short sighted and foolish
    4 points
  13. Any LDS member who dismisses the idea of conspiracies is ignorant of their own doctrines.
    4 points
  14. While I understand this line of thinking, I don't see this as an example of the parable of the ten virgins. The 10 virgins are faithful saints. Someone sowing seeds of discontent are not faithful saints. The five foolish actually believe, on a basic level. They even want the Church's missions to succeed and the word of the Lord to be preached in strength and righteousness. But they don't have the spiritual fuel to withstand significant trials (from whatever source). They are easily misled. They will have a greater tendency to give up on their faith if really pressed. They are being spiritually carried by those stronger in the faith. They may still hold more worldly beliefs when forced into the dichotomy. The parable is not about wolves in sheep's clothing. In fact, the weakness itself describes the 5 foolish. Whereas, the interloper has to be strong to carry on their mission.
    4 points
  15. From a recent article “Notwithstanding their key roles in therapy and as biological probes, 7% of approved drugs are purported to have no known primary target, and up to 18% lack a well-defined mechanism of action.“ The following is a screenshot of a medical app for the drug Colchicine, a well known and frequently used gout medication. We know how some of it works, but not the EXACT mechanism. For most drugs we don't know the exact mechanism. I see patients all the time that are on 10+ medications. No one knows the chemical interactions that are occurring when multiple medications are floating around the system. And then you add in pollution, genetic modification of our food products, etc… I remember 20 years ago in med school when we were told that we needed to do a better job treating pain. That nobody should ever be in pain. And that a patient’s perceived pain should be a vital statistic. - Guess who started the current Narcotic epidemic. Pain is no longer a vital statistic. ( I never bought into that garbage anyway). Be careful out there folks.
    4 points
  16. The trouble with using the church’s (lack of) willingness to do proxy temple work for someone as an indicia for whether that person was truly “alive”, is that the church [except in very limited circumstances] doesn’t let you do proxy temple work for Holocaust victims or people who lived before 1500 AD. But of course, such people were very much alive. I see where you’re going, but let me explore this a bit just for the sake of discussion: Church members kill people all the time without having to go through the formal (ie, ecclesiastical) repentance process. How many Church members today served in Afghanistan, or Iraq? And if we say “well, those wars were morally justified”—okay, then; but how many Church members were disciplined for serving in the Wehrmacht? And, if part of being fully reconciled to God is understanding and recoiling from the full magnitude of my sins, and if such repentance is much easier in this life than the next—then why would God shield me in mortality from the sure knowledge that a particular abortion I participated in did, in fact, end a human life? Wouldn’t my knowing that be highly advantageous to—perhaps even necessary for—my timely repentance?
    4 points
  17. There are multiple advantages to the answer being unknown. Two are: 1. If it were to be revealed that life begins at birth, sadly even more members of the Church would use that to justify abortion. 2. If it were to be revealed that life begins at conception, abortion would be considered "like until murder" in a much more strict sense and repentance for it during this life would become even more complicated. The ambiguity makes it easier for the Lord to both grant mercy to those who will sin in ignorance and to preserve those who would be tempted to justify. I think, perhaps for these and other reasons, the Lord, in his wisdom, has chosen not to reveal this.
    4 points
  18. I've heard the description cited above by Laronius and Person0. I'd like to add the following. 1. John the baptist leapt in the womb when he had several months remaining before his birth. 2. We tend to have this belief that the veil is a very thin wall that completely obscures one side from the other. I believe it is more like a fog that gradually obscures the vision the further we go. And it only becomes complete some short time after birth. It may be longer than we might think. 3. The Brother of Jared had faith so strong that he could not be kept from seeing within the veil. Based on #2 & 3 above, what can be said of the Savior?
    4 points
  19. You've probably heard. It's all over the news. Trump's Mar-a-Lago Home was raided by the FBI. The subtext was that he had some records that belong to the Federal Government that he supposedly took home with him. The liberal media is, for once, all over the board. They don't know what to make of it. There are some liberals siding with conservatives being outraged at an obvious weaponization of the DOJ for political purpose. Others are saying that they recovered documents that were labeled "Top Secret". These would obviously be the property of the Federal Government, and therefore would be considered "stolen". And there are many saying that the story is still developing, so they don't have all the facts. I believe it was Don Jr. who said that they broke in but didn't find anything in his father's safe. As you can imagine, every conservative is outraged by this making cries of third world countries (Trump, himself, made this accusation along with others). Others using the term Banana Republic. GOP legislators are threatening to bring up the officers of the FBI before a Congressional Hearing about this. I have no idea if that will even do anything. AFAIK, I don't think Congress has any authority to convict anyone of a crime unless it's Democrats wanting to imprison several dozen protesters who hurt their feelings over 18 months ago. So, as usual, because it was perpetrated on a Republican by Democrats, we'll never see any justice because of this. The White House is denying they even knew about this. OK, given Biden's current condition, I bet he didn't. But what is he going to do about this? Oh, that's right, also nothing.
    3 points
  20. 1. I agree with @MrShorty. I think it could be most succinctly be described as “Joseph Smith’s Bible study journal”; the result of such gave us a mostly-inspired and partially canonized commentary. Beyond that, I don’t think one can really generalize. You’ve got to take each correction, addition, or deletion as an individual case—it may be the direct result of either a vision, a revelation, an inspired hunch, or a purely intellectual/academic process; or, it may simply be an “educated guess” from a prophet whose spiritual education exceeded that of anyone else in his dispensation. 2. I regard the uncanonized parts of the JST the way I would regard any other isolated statement by a prophet/apostle: always worth considering, probably true; but also not canon and possibly flawed (though probably not). I guess you could call that “partial deference”.
    3 points
  21. I agree. I think God will start sending us better candidates, when we show Him that we are actually faithfully waiting for them. If I may co-opt CS Lewis: D&C 98:10-11 is not idealistic gas; nor is it a command to do the impossible. Trump can at times be adept at “owning the libs”, which is always fun. But we knew long before 2016 that he just wasn’t a good guy; and beating the Hildebeast didn’t suddenly make him into a good man.
    3 points
  22. I live in California so it doesn't matter how I vote in the presidential election. But I would hope that we could have at least one intelligent, God fearing, honest candidate on the ballot. You would think that in out great country we could… I’m thrilled with Trump’s Chief Justices. And he certainly can be entertaining, but the haughty know it all attitude rubs me wrong. Its kinda bizarre having teleprompter in chief.
    3 points
  23. The Chief Judge who was murdered by his brother that Nephi prophesied about was plausibly also a wicked man. If we consider Trump as like one of the Chief Judges, he doesn't have to be compared to Nephi for it to be an accurate comparison. Personally, I have seen Trump like Morianton from the Book of Ether: a good leader to the people, despite not being a good role model due to his moral failings. This is me exactly. 😂
    3 points
  24. I heard the deficit spending amendment they want to add would require over 50% of the State legislatures to approve the deficit spending unless we had a declaration of war in effect. The more and more I look at the District of Columbia the more I see it resembles a corrupt banana republic. We have many robbers and thieves sitting in some of the highest seats of authority in this land.
    3 points
  25. That meme is sadly accurate. There are (and have been) wolves in sheep's clothing among the membership for a long time now. Some of them are quite subtle and quietly sow seeds of doubt.
    3 points
  26. For those who might be a new member of the Church, or not even a member at all, or just lurking, this stands for Ezra Taft Benson who was a Prophet and president of the Church many years ago.
    3 points
  27. Vort

    Very Interesting...

    I admit that they could not have chosen a better and more appropriate name.
    3 points
  28. I'm wondering - can you quote anything from that link to support any of your three claims? Because when I read through it, I see stuff like: I mean, there are an awful lot of big words in the study that I don't understand, but I do know what the word "cohort" means. It means 'a bunch of people'. [bolding mine] I mean, all those N numbers refer to the number of individual humans involved in those studies. I'm failing to see how anyone could possibly think serotonin based treatment has never been studied. Or that it was all theoretical based on chemistry alone, not actual observations of test subjects. What this means, is that while we've been studying the holy living crap out of depression and brain chemistry, in and out of the lab, with a never ending tsunami of individual and group studies; While we've even been doing meta-analyses of the studies, lumping many studies together and doing studies of the studies; while we've been doing all that for decades, nobody has made the effort to do a meta analysis in order to "synthesise and evaluate evidence on whether depression is associated with lowered serotonin concentration or activity in a systematic umbrella review of the principal relevant areas of research".
    3 points
  29. I see the similarity in the nose structure, but the lower jaw and eye corners look different to me. Maybe that’s attributable to Joseph’s face having reportedly been bashed with the butt of a musket postmortem; I don’t know. My bigger question is: why didn’t we know about it before now? The locket is traced to 1869 when Joseph III’s (second) wife, Bertha Madison, is wearing it in a photograph. Bertha Madison has a life sketch up on FamilySearch. She only converted to (RLDS) Mormonism in the mid-1860s, seems never to have met the Prophet, and would have been barely a year old even if she had. Why is she carrying around the picture of a father-in-law she never met, and why is she apparently the only member of a Restorationist sect who possessed such a picture? Joseph III lived until 1914 and the locket remained in the family—he knew it existed and, if he thought it depicted his father, he could have had the picture reproduced and published anytime he wanted. Why didn’t he? Looking at her photo in FamilySearch, Bertha Madison Smith has sort of pronounced lower jaw. almost puffy-ish lower cheeks and mouth, and drooping outside corners of the eyes that to my mind resemble the face of the man in the newly-discovered photo. This is just a guess; but to my mind the man in the locket is more likely some family member of hers—perhaps her father Mads Madison (1813-1893).
    3 points
  30. I actually like the fact that it's not what I expected. If it's really a photograph of Joseph Smith, then he did not look much like I had envisioned, i.e. he didn't look all that much like the Church's visual media has portrayed him. I take some perverse pleasure in being challenged on trivial, unimportant points like this.
    3 points
  31. So you are talking about "insecurity" as a feeling rather than a state. Yes, many people do indeed feel insecure. But it is not the government's job* to make people feel secure. It is the government's job to make sure people are secure. *Apparently, that's a politician's job. We can no more make everyone feel secure than we can make everyone feel loved or make everyone feel cold or make everyone feel drunken. So people's feelings of insecurity are of no immediate consequence.
    3 points
  32. 1. Why not? We codify religious dogmas condemning murder, rape, fraud, and theft. Even if one comes back and say “well, it’s not really they those are morally wrong; it’s that they’re socially destabilizing”, it’s hard to argue that social destabilization is objectively bad unless you are starting with some presumptions to the effect that life (beyond my own) is good, pain (beyond my own) is bad, harmony (even if it inconveniences me personally) is desirable, etc. Those presumptions are nearly impossible to sever from one’s religious/philosophical outlook. 2. I think you hint at it above: if my wife and I, as Latter-day Saints, are struggling with a physically/emotionally/financially difficult pregnancy and we are wondering if we ought to let it run its course; it can be a game changer to know whether an abortion means that a sentient spirit basically misses out on nearly all of its mortal experience and goes straight to the afterlife.
    3 points
  33. The question should not be about when it become life (because it already is alive)... but rather when it becomes Human with all the Human Rights that come with it. If it is not human... then it is simply another clump of living cells in the mothers body and her bodily autonomy prevails. But if it is human with all the Human Rights that come with it.. then we have a conflict of two individuals rights. This is a conflict that we have repeatably dealt with in our legal system. Generally speaking our legal system does not allow killing or harming another through the right of bodily autonomy, but it does allow it for defense. Some of the greatest historical tragedy we have come from finding a reason to view someone else as less then human. We have had it done based on superficial physical or cultural differences. Slavery, holocaust and treatment of women are just the really big ones that come to mind. In all those case the differences were largely unchangeable. Yet we realized we were wrong and we fought to change it. (And we continue to fight) In the case of the unborn their differences will go away... all they need is time... Yet I am suppose to consider them not human or sub human for the lack of at most nine months? Sorry that does not work for me. I see that as putting me with historical company that I do not want to keep (Slavers, Nazis etc.) For the church side of it... if we knew through revelation when a spirit takes on the body we would have a clear line in which to draw. But we do not have that... and we could not prove it to others even if we did.... So we need others reasons... and I just outlined mine. The current legality is not a good reason... all the other tragedy's were legal at the time until we said no more. Choice can be a good reason if it is not in reality an attempt to undo poor or regrettable prior choices (that is a consequence and murdering someone to avoid a bad choice is not acceptable) ... But rather a response to other imposing their will... In that case a choice could fall under defensive action depending on ongoing trauma from the event.
    3 points
  34. If it doesn't get too personal, I will offer another data point. The Church officially feels very differently about stillbirth (and miscarriage) than they do about those born alive. My first child was stillborn at 39 weeks gestation (essentially full term). The Church officially says that they will not keep a record of him nor would they perform proxy ordinances (sealing to parents would be the important one) if needed. The Church is officially neutral on his status as a person and as a member of my family. Allow me to emphasize the neutral stance, in that they are not saying one way or another, but punting on the question until the next life. Contrast that with a child born premature at 24 weeks (speaking hypothetically only because I have not personally experienced this, I'm sure someone somewhere has personal experience with this scenario), who struggles for hours or days or weeks, and then passes away. By virtue of having "lived" outside of the womb for any length of time (however brief), that child is considered by the Church to be unambiguously a member of the family and eligible for proxy sealing to parents when needed. I don't know the answer to the OP's question. At conception seems too early, to me. As I understand it, the Church is a bit ambiguous about the space between conception and birth, and doesn't truly recognize a child as fully and unambiguously alive until birth (perhaps in keeping with the example given in the OP). This seems more an admission of a lack of revelation rather than a firm stance one way or the other, preferring to let God decide those things and tell us later (probably next life).
    3 points
  35. My opinion is that mentioned by @person0that what he heard was the Holy Ghost in his role as messenger, kind of a "thus saith the Lord" kind of pronouncement that prophets make as an agent of the Lord. Though we do know people have near-death experiences where it appears that their spirits temporarily leave their body. So I guess it's possible Jesus was able to do the same here.
    3 points
  36. LDSGator

    Gators vs Utah game

    Update: I’m donating to a first responder charity if Utah wins, he’s donating to the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric Aids foundation if the Gators win.
    3 points
  37. CV75

    Mind/spirit interaction

    I think that as long as spirit and element are connected, the spirit affects the element that houses it and the element affects the spirit that chose to connect with it. Given that we (our spirits, "For man is spirit"), chose to come into this second estate and become souls, the spirit will also quicken and glorify of the element that houses it in the resurrection. Spirit is matter, but is more fine and pure than the element that houses it. I count brains and neurochemicals as element.
    2 points
  38. Nutshell: Joseph received revelation that over the centuries a number of theological truths and principles had been lost from the manuscripts that comprised what we today know as the Bible. The JST was him attempting a spiritually-based re-translation whose goal was to seek out these lost truths and re-insert them. However, he was murdered before he completed it, which is a big part of why we put the JST in footnotes and a special section at the end instead of incorporating it all into the text.
    2 points
  39. I have a hard time commenting on this because the information in the media is all SO biased. I don't trust it. I know that what I typically see is that the media and everyone makes the terrible claims about him and they typically turn out to be inaccurate, twisted, or outright lies. So is there truth in some of the claims related to what happened with the Sandy Hook stuff....??? Could be. Probably is. But it's a cry wolf situation and so I don't trust much. And having not followed Alex Jones back then at all...well I just don't know. I'm not sure how to think on the idea of "followers" of any given person doing something that the person didn't tell them to and then blaming said person. We see the same thing with the Trump/Jan 6 narrative going on. As a general rule I don't buy that sort of thinking. Should Alex have said, "stop this" to them, in that case? Well, yeah. Of course. But I'm not sure we can really know the full story, what he was thinking, and why he might have said or not said what he did related to that. So I can get on board that there may have been mistakes made by him. From what I know of him though, he'd probably admit the same. In fact I've heard him say he made mistakes on certain things. Because he isn't some prophet leader of some cult. He's a radio show personality who talks about stuff. I mean we see the same thing with like Joe Rogan and the medicine he talked about taking on his show for Covid. Joe's not responsible if someone takes him as the authority on the matter. Anyone who takes Joe Rogan as an authority on anything besides, perhaps, MMA stuff is being dumb. Joe Rogan isn't an authority. If he said, "This is what you should do!" then, sure...he becomes somewhat culpable (though those believing him would still be dumb to do it on his word alone... Do your own research people!). But does every person with any sort of a following on any given platform need to automatically presume their listeners are nut-jobs who will do something stupid based on their opinions. Well...probably. Yeah. But... did Alex Jones presume that? Should he have? I dunno. Anyhow, I'm not really defending Alex Jones here. I just...I dunno... There's a problem in the world. (That's putting it lightly. I mean there are many problems. But....) Speech is under attack. Big time! It's a serious problem. Political correctness is out of control. People can't talk about so many things. Opinions can't be shared. Debates can hardly be had. It's bad. And it's getting worse. I'm not defending Jones...but his ability to share his opinions on things openly even if they're off based.... That I would defend. Of course that doesn't have anything to do with whether he's a good or bad person. Who knows. It doesn't strike me he's bad. Just flawed. But that's everyone. Right? Anyhow...just chatting. Don't take my thoughts too seriously on the matter. It's more a matter of curiosity than having any sort of real stance.
    2 points
  40. Vort

    Falling Stars

    Don't forget David Robinson and Patrick Ewing. (Ignore Ewing's lack of championships. He never got the help he needed, and no one not named Chamberlain can win a game all by himself. Not even Jordan.) Never liked Kareem. 7'2" of crybaby. But he was a great center in an era of great centers. He stood out, literally and figuratively. Easily a top 5 all-time center, and easily a top 30 all-time player. Olajuwon was always, always, always underrated. He may have been The Best Pure Center Of All Time No I Am Not Joking Even A Little. I absolutely loved the guy; maybe my favorite player, certainly among the top few. Unbelievably athletic, freakishly smart (basketball-wise), and HE NEVER PLAYED BASKETBALL UNTIL HE WAS FIFTEEN YEARS OLD. Despite being billed as 7' or 6'11", could not have been more than 6'9" or 6'10". Just look at him standing next to other centers of the time. Abdul-Jabbar looked to be four inches taller. Olajuwon played like he was 7'6", while my man Shawn Bradley (always pulled for him), who really was 7'6", often played like he was 6'9". Difference in temperament and mindset.
    2 points
  41. 2 points
  42. I think it is important to consider that (despite the fact that adherents may deny it) in reality, secularism and its modern associates are religions. These religions are proselytized by their members. I think it is not too farfetched to assume that Nephi intended the word "church" to include religious adherents, which would have included the worship of false gods and idols (in the myriad forms in which they present in society). I think that the influence of the church of the devil is found wherever the philosophies of men are mingled with scripture. It is most evident and explicit when such a mixture is used aggressively against the truth. One way we frequently see this is when individuals (especially secular adherents) recite the passage, "Judge not, that ye be not judged"; while they may invoke scripture, usually, the true intention is to justify and coerce acquiescence to sin and evil. Consider the parable of the ten virgins. All ten knew of the bridegroom, were looking forward to his coming, and wanted to join him. How could it be that, despite all being aware of his coming, only five of the virgins knew to have the oil and the other five didn't? They all knew enough to have a lamp in the first place, enough to be there waiting, and even enough to recognize the call to go out to meet the bridegroom. If they were aware of all that, it seems to me the only thing that could have impeded their preparation would be an "eat, drink, and be merry" attitude. In the end, from the perspective of the bridegroom, would these five foolish virgins have been of the Church of God, or the church of the devil? Who do the ten virgins represent? Perhaps, sadly, members of the church of the devil, and its influence, can be found everywhere in society, even mingling among the members of the Lord's Church.
    2 points
  43. We sadly have multiple families/individuals in our ward who have been to the temple, and for all intents and purposes were "fully active" members; who now, have not been to church in over 2 years since the church won't "authorize" homosexuality. They fly the pride flag proudly on their homes, and tell all they meet that the church will be changing soon...that they will soon 'embrace love' and 'accept everyone as the Savior would'. A great deal of pressure will come from within just as much as from the outside.
    2 points
  44. scottyg

    Very Interesting...

    The following is another example. In coming days their rationale will shift to Christianity. How will the saints react when not just a state, but individuals are targeted? https://www.ksl.com/article/50448324/group-cancels-salt-lake-convention-over-utah-laws-on-abortion-transgender-girls-sports
    2 points
  45. One could argue we codify "moral philosophies" condemning murder, rape, fraud, and theft. I don't personally subscribe to the assumption that religious adherence is a prerequisite to moral behavior. I have mixed feelings about this as another category. At its core, it feels like the same problem, just looking at it prospectively rather than retrospectively. Ultimately, I think I'd advise that the answer to "when life begins" isn't needed in making this decision. I'd be prone to counsel that spiritual guidance and revelation is available and capable of guiding to the correct answer even without this knowledge. Indeed, spiritual guidance shines brightest when the answer isn't obvious. Regardless, a lot of my actions would fall in the same camp of "let them believe and feel what they need to believe and feel to endure the crap sandwich they are being fed." My job is to support and assist on the road to healing of all forms. And lectures on what we do and don't know about the beginning of life have no healing power.
    2 points
  46. See Posted July 17 and Quahal. 2 Nephi 28:3 ("not unto the Lord") seems to refer to contending denominations within Christendom; :12 seems to refer to secular and materialistic philosophies; and :18 to the church of the devil. Mosiah 25 refers to congregations or assemblies of believers under the same covenant Mosiah established under his priest-king authority.
    2 points
  47. Out of curiosity, what does "church" mean to you? Is there only one definition? Or do you use the same word with different meanings for different contexts?
    2 points
  48. Has the Book of Mormon ever been translated into contemporary English? No. Some have tried releasing "contemporary English" versions of the Book of Mormon, and some spellings/punctuation/grammar usage changes have been made, but today's Book of Mormon is essentially what came out of Joseph Smith's mouth. Do foreign language translations try to mimic the idea of using Jacobean English by using an older form of the target language? Not that I can tell. I believe the Spanish Book of Mormon quotes Biblical passages using the Reina-Valera translation, which was originally from the same time period (1602) as the KJV. I suspect the translators might have used a more modern version of the R-V translation, which was done in like 1960. The Italian Book of Mormon that I used on my mission made no obvious attempt to use old-timey-sounding language. I think the newer Italian translation follows the newer French and Spanish translations pretty closely, and it appears to be a much better and more fluid translation than what I used on my mission. I love the Book of Mormon. I love how it's written. I love the language it uses, though I'm not blind to the grammatical and other problems. "Thou" is used throughout, but it seems that "ye" or "you" is often used when "thou" is more appropriate, and on a couple of occasions it seems that "thou" is used when "ye" or "you" is meant. "Wherefore" means "why", e.g. when Shakespeare's version of Juliet says "Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?", she means "Why are you Romeo?", and not "Where are you, Romeo?" Some Book of Mormon usage of "wherefore" seems to follow this, but most of the time it seems to mean something like "therefore". The "-eth" suffixes are simply a Jacobean-era pronunciation of the common English third-person singular present active "-s" suffix. Thus "eats" is "eateth", "has" is "hath", "cries" is "crieth", etc. It was used in the London area and was simply a variant lisping pronunciation, though to our modern ears it sounds like an affectation. Some hard-to-understand translations of Isaiah passages were retained in Joseph Smith's rendering. I don't know why, though I have some theories (which are worth approximately what you have paid for them). One I remember is: When speaking about the destruction among the wicked in Israel, Isaiah talks about "dragons in their pleasant palaces". I have come to understand that this means that jackals ("dragons") will prowl among the ruins of destroyed Israel's great public buildings ("pleasant palaces"). But that was hardly obvious to me, or I expect to almost any contemporary English-speaking reader. I do hope you give the Book of Mormon another chance to help you with feelings of despair, despite any linguistic irritation. Since I started taking the Book of Mormon seriously at about age 19 or 20, it has changed my life for the better. On that note, it's worth pointing out that the Book of Mormon is what classical scholars would call a tragedy. In the end, everyone dies, good is overthrown and the world descends into evil. I believe that one point the Book of Mormon makes is that we should not expect God's triumph to occur in our lifetimes. We may be witnesses to and recipients of great miracles, and may come even to have a personal witness or testimony of the power of God. But this wicked world will not repent. We are here to do God's will, develop and strengthen our faith, accomplish as much good as we can, and watch and learn. If we expect Zion to be established in our lifetimes, we will almost certainly be disappointed. Zion is real, much moreso than our shadow puppet show world, and Zion will be established. But those times are not our times. Ours is to navigate the waters we find ourselves in and teach our children to do likewise. God's rest, peace, and joy await us. For now, we deal with the conditions we experience.
    2 points
  49. I think I agree with the unspoken message here. If we do truly go green, we'll be living without electricity. With some conditionals, I largely agree. But my larger point was that Biden had two conflicting goals. The only way that those TWO goals can converge is through nuclear. Life before electricity solves the "green" half of the equation but not his other stated goal. His other promise was to "create energy jobs."
    2 points
  50. My take on preferred pronouns: "He" is for Male. "She" is for female. If you say you're something else, I'll try not to offend you, but saying an untruth offends me. "It" sounds demeaning. "That" is a singular, neutral pronoun, but it might be fun to try. "They" is used when the sex of the person is unknown ("Someone knocked on the door and ran away. I did not see them"). *** When someone wants to be called "they," I usually know or have a good idea of that person's sex (an uncanny ability developed since I was about two years old). My solution is to try not to use any pronoun for them. I don't have to violate my rules, and I recognize them as a unique individual by calling them by their name. Basically, if someone wants to force me to use their pronouns, they don't get a pronoun. Pronouns are a convenience, not a right, and it's my choice whether I use them or not.
    2 points