Leaderboard

To all the forum -- I wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperious new year. The Traveler

Brian Hales is probably the leading expert on Joseph Smith’s plural marriages and he recently did a couple of episodes with “Mormonism With the Murph” on YouTube where he addresses a lot of this. IIRC, as to Section 132 itself: in short, we have a number of contemporaneous accounts (including from people who rejected it, like Marks and Law) of Joseph Smith having shown it to them or otherwise teaching it. Hales also points out that JS basically took plural wives in three “waves”, if you will: 1) Fanny Alger. That situation blows up so badly that JS abandons plural marriage for years. 2) Following a threat from an angel with a drawn sword, JS begins marrying plural wives—but nearly all of them are women who are already married to other men. Hales posits that he deliberately chose married women because, out of respect for Emma as well as Joseph’s own feelings, he planned to have these be sexless “eternity-only” marriages. 3) The angel with drawn sword comes again, basically saying “that’s not what I meant and you know it. Now, do it right.” At this point Smith’s future brides are single women, and several of them later affirm (as genteelly as Victorians ever would) that there was indeed a sexual element to their marriages with Smith.

We don’t know that. Many assume that, because they just can’t fathom the idea of God acting in a way that they’ve been culturally groomed to believe is universally unjustifiable. David O. McKay was ready, willing, and able to remove the ban in the 1950s. He prayed about it requesting permission multiple times, and was repeatedly told “no”; there are multiple accounts of people who heard him tell about this. Once we admit that the continuation of the ban past 1951 was at God’s instruction, it becomes awfully difficult to argue that the implementation of the ban could not have been at His instruction. Especially when there is both past and modern precedent for lineage/ethnic/“race”-based bans on priesthood ordination and/or temple blessings. (Even today, the Church won’t do proxy temple work for Jews in the spirit world except under very rare circumstances. Is that an error, or a temporary concession that God allowed His servants to make so that other facets of His work could go forward? We don’t like to think about the work of salvation or the Church’s mission including any kind of cold calculus that advances the work of salvation in one field at the expense of delaying the salvation of other individuals—especially when those individuals are statistical minorities or perceived “outsiders” or victims oof historical oppression—but it absolutely does.) When modern Church leadership says “we don’t know the ‘why’, and it’s best not to speculate”, they don’t mean “LDS progressives get to make all kinds of inferences and accusations and extrapolate links to modern-day issues, and LDS conservatives are bound not to offer any pushback”. They mean “we don’t know the ‘why’, and it’s best not to speculate”.

The older I get, the more apropos it seems to compare the marital relationship to the relationship between the Church membership and the Q15. My relationship with spouse is important, even salvational. Truth is important, even salvational. Sometimes my spouse is wrong and I am right. Sometimes she is right and I am wrong. I don’t usually know when I am wrong while I am in the act of being wrong. Even when I am quite sure my spouse is wrong—there are times when it’s important she knows she’s wrong, and there’s are times it’s not important. *How* I tell my spouse she’s wrong, matters a great deal. I can do immense harm to our relationship if I go about it in the wrong way. Just because I may need to tell my spouse she’s wrong, doesn’t necessarily mean I need to tell third parties that she’s wrong. How I talk about my spouse to third parties, again, matters enormously. I can do immense harm to our relationship if I go about it in the wrong way. With regard to points 4-8: I need to be really careful to think about what my own motivations are in these cases. What am I trying to accomplish? Am I trying to use guilt or shame in furtherance of some personal agenda? As with the relationship between me and my spouse: so with the relationship between me and the Church leadership. With regard to the intra-Church Brigham-hate, I think most of it comes from three distinct camps: A. Libertines who, on behalf of themselves or out of some warped notion of “love for others”, want to bring the Sexual Revolution into the church; but realize they can only do so by undermining the historical underpinnings of the current leadership’s moral authority. These people deserve contempt. B. Trauma-dumpers. Generally victims of abuse or infidelity (or very close to such victims), who as a coping/survival mechanism have adopted broad caricatures about the sort of people who perpetrate these misdeeds. These folks tend to get (and I don’t mean this pejoratively) triggered by superficial similarities between alleged conduct of JS/BY. Detailed arguments justifying JS/BY and explaining how their conduct and motives differed from actual predators, demands a re-opening and re-processing of old wounds and a certain embrace of empathy and nuance that many of these folks just aren’t willing (or, perhaps, therapeutically able) to undertake. They deserve pity (but to the extent that they perpetuate historical falsehoods, those must still be refuted). C. Populist-conservatives who have for various reasons (especially COVID) developed a new streak of anti-institutionalism and are still trying to reconcile that with the fastidious obedience (and often, brittle black-and-white thinking) that they’ve traditionally offered to the Church (eg, “Why would a prophet who can never be wrong demand that my family to take this 100% Satanic vaccine?”). I think a certain amount of historic-church-hate like this tends to soothe a lot of their concerns (“prophets CAN be wrong and things will still come out ok in the long run”); but I don’t think such people have really thought through the full ramifications of the historical allegations they’ve accepted as true, and I think that over time that mentality to some degree becomes a spiritual bandage that conceals tissue that is festering rather than healing. And I really don’t know how to deal with people in that mindset.

First off, the image of sticks representing the records of Judah and Joseph is a secondary interpretation. As with the previous chapter where the assembled bones serve as a testimony of resurrection, the primary message is that Israel and Judah will be reunited. That said, the two sticks as records fits better than bones as resurrection because the Book of Mormon (as stated by Nephi) is a precursor and a facilitator of that reconciliation. Now, on the point of the reliability of reading the sticks as books, it turns out that the word “wood” is far more versatile than you give it credit for. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=26&article=1011&context=mi&type=additionalhttps://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=26&article=1011&context=mi&type=additional see the section on “What is an ‘Etz’?

No, it is not. Almost all of what you posted has been said by prophets in not-so-many-words. The danger of emphasizing our belief in a Heavenly Mother comes when we tend to believe that our Heavenly Parents are somehow of different minds. They are both perfect. They are perfectly in harmony with each other. They are perfectly loving to their children. They would both provide the same answers to the same problems. So, I don't see how some people (especially women) who get it into their heads "My Father hasn't been fulfilling my needs. I know that my Mother would certainly treat me differently!" No. No, She wouldn't.

General rule, if you did not initiate the phone/text/email contact it is fake. If you are concerned, disconnect from the conversation, look up the number for said entity and call that number and see if they are trying to reach you. Police don't call and tell you that you have a warrant and if you pay a fee you are good. We come get you and take you to jail.

Start doing your genealogy. You gonna find all kinds of interesting skeletons in the closet. Presumably, The genetic code of Adam and Eve were perfect, without mutation. One of the problems with incest is the expression of recessive alleles of genetic mutations. Not an issue. Do some research on genetic bottlenecks. Cheetahs are interesting. We think they had a bottleneck last ice age. Their species is so similar that they have 0.1 -4% of the genetic diversity found in most other species. They can donate and receive organs from each other without fear of rejection.

I feel on both sides of the increasingly zigzagging fence with this thread, so to be clear, let me state my understandings and opinions: The so-called Priesthood ban was instituted by the highest leadership in the Church, either Brigham Young or Joseph Smith. The Priesthood ban required a divine revelation to be removed. A simple "change in policy" was insufficient. In my opinion, God Himself was probably the Being with whom the Priesthood ban originated. I admit that it is possible that the Church's president (Smith or Young) made that decision on their own, but I disbelieve that. Assuming that God was the Author of the Priesthood ban, which is the default position and the one I tend to believe, I do not know why He instituted the ban. But the speculation as to "why" has some pretty evident answers, historically and scripturally. I am talking specifically about the now-disavowed* theories of why African blacks were excluded from holding the Priesthood and from post-baptismal temple blessings. The fact that those theories have been "disavowed" does not mean they have been proclaimed false. These answers may or may not have validity. They may be fundamentally right, or they may be totally wrong. The often-advanced claim that the theories have been disavowed by the Church, and therefore have been proclaimed to have been false, is itself false. In matters of scriptural interpretation, I tend to agree pretty closely with @Maverick. I have no problem owning the previous teachings of the Church. I feel not the least bit of shame or embarrassment over the Church's doctrines or actions, any more than I might somehow feel ashamed to own Jesus Christ. I am not ashamed. I stand with the prophets, even in my (and their) imperfections. In matters of current teachings, I fully accept the 1978 revelation (which, by the way, was received with great joy not only by my 15-year-old self, but by everyone in my family—and frankly by everyone in the Church that I knew). While I have no shame or guilt or any other foolish negativity toward the Church's previous teachings and practices, I rejoice that the long-promised day came in my lifetime, and even in my childhood/very young adulthood. I hold in contempt any opinions advanced by any party or "side" that suggest that Brigham Young or Joseph Smith or any other Church leaders were racist. When those opinions suggest that the racism of the leaders was the actual reason for the Priesthood ban, I consider that a disloyal and contemptible opinion, one for which I have zero respect. We really, actually, truly did live before this life. We lived for a very long time, much longer than the history of this earth. During that time we made decisions, and we progressed (or failed to progress) based on those decisions. We had our agency, and we exercised that agency. Exactly how this inarguable truth might interface with the Priesthood ban, I do not know, nor do I believe anyone else knows. But to think that our premortal life/lives and our decisions made in our premortal history can have no bearing on our station in this life beggars the imagination. I have no interest in arguing about the Priesthood ban. Rather, I have an intense interest in arguing for and defending the integrity of the prophets. To chalk the Priesthood ban up to prophetic ignorance or racism or stupidity or any other antiChrist motive is, in my view, dishonorable and disloyal. I will speak up against such heretical statements when I can. If people want to think that makes me a racist, I welcome the false accusation, and believe it will be heaped on the heads of the false accusers. If you think to damn me for "racism", you damn yourselves for your false witness. * "Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else."

This very, very anti-Trump stance is not uncommon among Latter-day saints (relatively speaking, depending on what one means by "common"). My wife has an uncle who sees things this way. There's a website called the Moroni Project that's about the same p.o.v. It's not unsurprising that a BYU professor sees things that way. I guess the thing I find strange is that they aren't flipping the same way over Kamala, Clinton (both of them), Obama, and Biden. All of them are just as "evil" as the next.

The thing is, we already have a federal program geared towards making sure that women, infants, and children have enough to eat. And that’s above and beyond a broader program of food stamps/TANF. The programs are not particularly well-administered, in my experience; but they do exist and they do work. Moreover, I’ve been a desperately poor parent[*]. I would venture to guess that a lot of folks—especially LDS folks, who are encouraged to start having children early—have been. I never resorted to crime. In that time of poverty it was my upbringing and values and social network, not my need, that determined my life choices. It’s certainly dangerous to over-generalize; but on the whole I don’t think people steal because they are hungry. Rather, I think they steal—and fail to succeed professionally—through a combination of entitlement, a lack of self-discipline, and a rejection of the possibility of (or the character traits, skills, and activities that enable) social mobility. That sounds like a moral judgment, and I don’t mean it to—a lot of folks, especially these days, just weren’t raised to know any better; and political/“community” leaders have tended to cater to and exacerbate these traits, rather than working and demanding accountability to see that those traits are extinguished. *EDIT: on a re-reading, what I should have written is “I’ve been desperately poor *as a* parent.” Though, I’m a pretty poor parent, too.

This is an idea I have pondered, and each time I ponder this type of thought I keep coming to the same verse of scripture and the same thought. John 15: 20, "Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also." The sons and daughters of God who myopically focus on the fallibility of prophets, and constantly use this as a way of disobedience or enmity would have done the same with their Lord. There's a difference between understanding fallibility and being consumed by fallibility. Those consumed would have seen an "imperfect" Savior.

Maybe. But I see MGTOW as something far more insidious. Like feminism itself, MGTOW's foundational assumptions and claims are not completely specious; on the contrary, many such claims are exactly on the mark. This fact makes MGTOW, like feminism, more dangerous rather than more true. It's easy to see the excesses and evils of feminism. Just look around. It's not as easy to see the evils of MGTOW, because our society is not yet conditioned to look for them. We may be with MGTOW today at the point that feminism was with the US population in the 1960s, with a lot of people nodding and saying, "You know, they have a point." Feminism has proven to be one of the most malignant societal cancers of our time; much of the corruption and decadence of today's United States can be laid at feminism's door. MGTOW, if left unchecked and unchallenged, will be as cancerous as feminism, and might well complete the evil that feminism began: The dissolution of the relationship between men and women, and the resulting utter destruction of the family. This is and always has been feminism's ultimate goal. Honestly, MGTOW is no different. This is a bitter pill for me. I recognize the truths that MGTOW preaches, and some part of my mind and spirit rejoices that, finally, someone is willing to point and state openly that the emperor has no clothes. But mainstream MGTOWism is not merely a rejection of western feminism; it is a dismissal of the feminine altogether, a proclamation that women are nothing but vaginas to be used at will but never bonded to. Ironic, really. Modern feminism glorifies women as of inherent, intrinsic worth, requiring no other condition besides a vagina to be revered and protected, while MGTOW accepts the value of women as being that same vagina, and nothing more. It's easy to say that feminism brought MGTOW on itself, but that's like saying your skin cancer brought on the bone cancer, so good riddance to both. As alluring as MGTOWism might be to many men, it is not the correct response to modern feminism. It is ultimately a furthering of the same evil that feminism represents. We would never want our daughter or our sister or our wife or our mother to be treated as MGTOW often portrays. If we see women, even feminists, as sisters and daughters, we can perhaps see through MGTOW at what we should really be striving for.

There has been some really weird and undesirable traffic within the last 24 hours. I had to sleep but I'm back to working on it. But in the meantime, verification must stay on to keep the server up/functioning/responding at all till the "attack?" is mitigated.

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.

Random thoughts: 1. I loved the Vatican when I visited. I’d like to live there. I also recognize that if it became the sort of place where the likes of me could go and live, much of what I love about it would be lost. My love for it—and indeed, a big part of its allure and spiritual power—derives from the fact that it is not what it would inevitably become if it were under my control. And I wish that Francis had understood and conceded about my country, what I understand and concede about his. 2. LDS temples are beautiful, but (with a handful of exceptions) their artistry is not even in the same ZIP code as the artistry of the great medieval and renaissance basilicas and cathedrals. 3. Artistry can be a form of worship. Craftsmanship can be a form of worship. In our temples we do the latter very well; as I think we are theologically beholden to do. But we do the former only at a very elementary level. Temple artwork is first and foremost intended to recall and evoke the spirit of specific past events; not about embracing beauty as an aspect of divinity and then pioneering new ways of seeking beauty for its own sake. 4. There are good reasons for the LDS Church as an institution to *not* prioritize artistry, even (arguably, especially) in its temples. Structures can become enormous money pits if you aren’t willing to say goodbye to them when they become obselete or damaged beyond repair (see SL Temple, SL Tabernacle, Provo City Center Temple, Kirtland Temple; compare Ogden Temple, Anchorage Temple, Provo Rock Canyon Temple). And the architectural uniqueness of France’s great cathedrals is a big part of why the government there expropriated those buildings and has often refused to give them back in the intervening centuries.

Thank you all for your thoughtful responses! This is such a wonderful community. You've given me a lot to reflect on. I deeply believe in the truth of the Gospel and have no desire to stray, so it's been invaluable to connect with other members here and gain their perspectives, especially since I don't have many opportunities for that in my own ward.

My mother is a resident alien... She has her green card and everything. I have no problem with immigration and those that want to come here and make a better life for themself. I also know that our current system for legal immigration is a horrible mess of a bureaucratic nightmare which needs a massive overhaul. So I have a great deal of sympathy for those that more or less just skip it out of frustration/confusion or what ever. I understand the the basic drive of a choice between a of hard, cumbersome, expensive, legal way vs cheap, easy, fast, illegal way. Now I hear a lot about fixing the second option aka make it harder (walls, cameras, guards, more ICE enforcement etc.) which I generally support but I hear nothing from either party about fixing the first option. That is where I think we need to be focusing. If we make the legal option more viable, more attractive, more doable... Then the second option start losing its appeal to the people we want immigrating. We will still need to make the second option harder because that will still be the only option for criminals/terrorists but if the first option is improved it makes it harder for them to hide among the good people that we want.

Then you are blind. Apart from many third-world countries (mostly in Africa) and some Middle Eastern nations, all nations have decreased their fertility rates in just this past generation. Many are now below replacement levels (2.1). This includes the United States (1.7 -- down from 2023 @ 1.8). That is only that high because of the presence of LDS and Amish. Take us out and it is 1.6. South Korea (0.7) will be dead in four or five generations unless they turn around. And before that, their economy will crumble just as the second generation grows into adulthood. Also keep in mind that those countries with higher birth rates also tend to be ones in which they have a high pre-adult mortality rate. The global fertility rate is 2.3. And the required rate for stability is also 2.3. But the fertility rate is dropping in ALL nations. That is an imminent threat to human survival by lack of procreation.

I don’t see this as a problem, actually. 1) The ban was always temporary in nature and if delaying its implementation meant that a couple of specific people who God wanted to wield the priesthood were able to wield it—for however limited a time—then I don’t see that as a problem. 2) Even if Abel’s and Lewis’s ordinations were mistakes from the get-go: the restoration was by its nature incremental; and (as JS told BY when discussing the endowment) some of the things Joseph Smith “set up” were not yet complete/correct in all their particulars. Smith was certainly a “prophet’s prophet”, but that didn’t make him infallible or make his teachings or practices immune to further development after his death.

When reviewing Jesus Christ’s final week. I was amazed at how often Christ would make a statement and the apostles would totally mis-understand him. And, that Jesus would not correct their misassumptions. This is a pattern that occurs throughout the scriptures. Retrospectively, many of the best learned lessons are when we make a mistake, realize the harm caused and then go through the process of repentance and reconciliation. We are not intended to go through this life perfectly. Why would we expect our current Church leadership to act perfectly? Is it OK for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to make mistakes? Do we have to understand the mind of God in order to follow him? I sure hope not.

I think a lot of times we miss the point of the Book of Job. I suspect there was a real person named Job; but the story of Job is merely an envelope—a tortilla shell for the meaty taco that is the book’s philosophical meditations and arguments. When you really dig into it—after the first chapter or two, Job is neither patient nor uncomplaining. Ironically, while He doesn’t question God’s righteousness (as he understands the term “righteousness”), Job sort of does suggest that maybe God isn’t quite omniscient—that God must have gotten His facts messed up to be punishing him, Job, for sins that Job is sure he didn’t commit. Basically, Job & Co are coming from the mindset that “God always rewards the innocent and punishes the guilty; and if someone is having a hard time, it’s because they sinned”. Job’s friends jump to the position that “you must have sinned”. Job himself basically maintains that “yes, that’s how it’s supposed to work; but I’m quite sure I didn’t sin and I’m sure God’s motives are righteous; God has just made a factual mistake about my righteousness, and if He would just talk to me we could sort this all out”. God basically comes in and says “Job is right that he hasn’t sinned and is right to stand by My righteousness. But none of you drips know anything about how My punishment or My justice work, and your puny minds wouldn’t understand it if I explained it to you.” Scholars who accept a later date for the current text of Job often see it as a subversive book; pushing back against Deutero-Isaiah’s concept of God’s immediate and unvarying rewards for the righteous and punishment for the sinful.

I'm appreciating the back and forth. I don't think a nation can survive without contentious-but-still-civil debate going on, and I'm grateful Thirdhour allows it. Wanted to address this one: The last time I checked, both sides were pretty clearly in agreement about some things. The left holds women in a class of historically marginalized people who have had to fight for centuries to gain things like laws that don't treat them as property, the right to do things like own property and vote. Last I checked (which was last week actually), there were still plenty of folks on the left valuing women's safe spaces, the right to live a life without fear, etc. So from that perspective, let's take a moment to look at this fun vid made by all the biological men invading the Capitol hill women's room in the last day or two, to protest banning men in women's rest rooms. I hear a bunch of 'em got arrested. https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1864517663155999053 Anyway, your accusation has validity. We talk a lot about men invading women's spaces, but not so much the other way around. Yeah, we pay pretty much zero attention to protecting men's spaces, etc. Because a woman heading into a men's room will be, 99 out of 100 times, more vulnerable and more prone to being in danger than the men. And while bio men winning in girls/women's sports has become such a thing that the United Nations finally took a stand against it, a biological woman trying to compete in boys/men's sports, will probably not win the trophy. In short, of course this isn't a two sided coin. Men are stronger and more aggressive than women. We can take care of ourselves. Men are stronger than women. They don't belong in women's rest rooms. From my perspective, you gotta ignore a lot of very common sense science in order to think of this in terms of a two sided coin. Of course, when we're talking minors, the gender disparity disappears. I do not want this female-to-male person going into the boy's bathroom. Us grown ups can have grown up debates all day about the issue, but I'll be resisting the cultural indoctrination and forced-confusion policies like letting boys or girls go into each other's bathrooms, for as long as I hold breath.

From the handbook:

This is cherry picking. Or it shows you haven't actually read the OT. A parent loves his children (as a desire and sentiment for good to be in their lives and for them to gain Eternal Life) whether they are behaving well or not. A parent loves his children when he needs to punish them and correct them. Yet there were many instances of God's mercy being abundant in the OT. Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden. But He gave them coats of skins. He gave them the Law of Sacrifice. He gave them a plan to work out their repentance. While the flood took most of the earth, He showed mercy to Noah and his family because they were righteous. When the Israelites were enslaved by an unfamiliar Pharoah, He gave them a deliverer who provided manna in the wilderness and water from a rock. When cursed with serpents, He provided them a miraculous way to be healed. He gave Hannah a son who was faithful to her and to the Lord. He gave Abraham blessings and an everlasting covenant for his faithfulness. Ruth and Boaz were united in a fairy tale romance. Daniel and his friends were preserved in the midst of a hostile takeover of the nation. They were even raised in the King's court because of the Lord's blessings. He gave them a promise of a Messiah. The Widow of Zarapeth was blessed twice by a Prophet of God. As Israel returned to their homeland, they were given a king (Cyrus) who freed them from slavery and would allow them to openly practice their religion in peace. He saved entire groups of people to live the gospel in its fulness (Lehites, Mulekites, Jaredites). It's easy to say that He was always fire and brimstone. But that is because you haven't actually read the OT. And if you compare (supposedly) 4000 years of OT history with 100 yrs of NT history, you're getting a skewed view. Because of wickedness, the power of the Priesthood was taken away from the earth. And the world endured over 1000 years of darkness. And then we also have the Book of Revelation.

Personality and revenge issues aside, I'm often appalled at European reactions to free speech. (Note: Free speech does not include libelous statements or intentionally rousing a mob riot.) I have heard many Europeans, Brits and Germans in particular, insist that they have free speech, and then immediately start explaining why this or that (e.g. Holocaust denial) isn't really a matter of free speech. I heard a couple of Brits on a YT channel talking about anti-homosexuality ("homophobic" was their word) activists in the US being forcibly silenced. Their response was, "Well, good. That sort of speech is offensive, and no one should be allowed to say it." That was the same time period that I heard an online German apologist say, literally, "We have free speech in Germany. Of course we do. You just can't talk about Hitler or say the Holocaust wasn't real." SMH. The frightening part for us Americans is that there is a sizeable contingent (still a minority, at least for now) that agrees with these ideas about so-called "free" speech.

I readily concede there is some real wisdom in this. But this idea seems often to be taken to the point of saying, in essence, "Don't worry about who's right and who's wrong. Just do whatever it takes to keep the peace." This is a recipe for long-term, unavoidable disaster. At some level, right and wrong have to be considered, and outcomes must be based on that judgment.

I think you'll find that if you ask any three Americans, you'll get four different opinions. Here's mine: - Biden demonstrated he was in serious cognitive decline during the Biden/Trump debate, and the calls for him to get out of the race grew and spread and eventually won. The Dem's best pick to run is Veep Kamala Harris. She's gone like 35+ days without giving a single interview. I hear they finally scheduled one, pre-recorded, with the always-left-leaning CNN. She won't be alone, she'll be with her Veep pick. It's like they're afraid to let her just be interviewed and show it live. - Yes, Trump survived an assassination attempt, with the bullet coming within a few centimeters of making his head explode. He's energized much of his base with his immediate show of strength. We don't know how to react to such things, as the last time this happened was with Reagan in the 1980's. The shooter is something of a question mark, but with more left/democrat-leaning stuff on his social media. It's hard to figure out why he did it. No manifesto, not much more history of yelling about politics than a lot of normal people. - Trump was convicted of multiple felonies, brought by a New York district attorney who got elected by promising to find something, anything upon which he could charge Trump. An awful lot more legal and criminal cases are all reaching nexus, as folks have carefully timed the charges and suits to coincide with the presidential campaign. We're seeing the dawning of a new word: "Lawfare". Trump ran on draining the swamp, the swamp is certainly fighting back hard. Another one got filed a day or two ago, I'm not seeing it make much news, I think we're all on news overload. - Harris is facing an uphill battle. Millions of illegal immigrants entered the US on her watch. Democrat run sanctuary cities like Denver having problems, like the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang setting up shop in a Denver suburb. And Boston is using so many resources to bus illegal children to school, that American children go without bussing. She once called Trump's border wall "un-American", now she's showing some of his wall in some of her campaign ads, promising to get tough on immigration. The left got hysterical when Trump's immigration policies had 545 illegal immigrant children slip through the cracks. We now learn in her 4 years, 290,000 illegal immigrant children have slipped through the cracks. Her administration is also flipping from years of no-fracking to yes-fracking, hoping to win some swing states that drill a lot. - The US culture is recovering from several years of being coerced into believing men can be women and vice versa. We were told "if you don't affirm your child's gender identity they'll kill themselves. You can either have an alive son or a dead daughter". The horrible consequences are slowly dawning on us as sex offender prisoners identifying as female get put into female prisons and assault female prisoners. Every day there's a new story of a young person trying to detransition back to their biological sex, and discovering they're now lifelong medical patients who may be permanently infertile. Every day a new story about minors put on puberty blockers, sometimes without parent's knowledge. Sometimes with only a 1 hour doctor's consultation. Also, more and more of us are dumping the marxist-inspired DEI nonsense. - Related to DEI and culture is the disturbingly large amount of antisemitism on college campuses. The student protests are bad enough, but there's also several disturbing instances of antisemitism in the school leadership. Colleges and universities are one thing, but it's also cropping up in public grade schools. Anyway, I blame the left for all the bad, and I hope to see a resurgence of principled constitutional conservatives, usually homed somewhere on the right. I'm voting Trump.

Went to the first ultra sound this week with the wife. Pregnancy didn't feel real up until this point, but seeing the baby wriggle around so much was completely mesmerising and has filled me with joy. It's hard to imagine that in about 6 months I'll be responsible for another human being.

There is a sister in our ward who is an empty-nester widow. He husband died just a couple of years ago. Her youngest son who was watching over her finally got married and moved out last year. I had befriended him while he lived here. I was sorry to see him go. But we still text each other. As you can imagine she was quite upset at finally being on her own with no one to talk to or watch over her. She has a friend in the ward in much the same situation, so the two of them kind of kept each other company from time-to-time. I wasn't her ministering brother. But she just seemed to latch on to me as a surrogate son while at church. I make it a point to give her a watermelon each year. As of a couple weeks ago I realized that I had not seen her at church for a while. When I asked around, I found out she was hospitalized. So, I called her son to see what the situation was. She had something resembling a stroke. It turned out it was brought on by two brain tumors. After her son gave me her location (a care facility in the next town over) my wife and I decided to make it our date night activity to go visit her. She was really upbeat and happy to see us. We had a nice conversation about all that had happened, and bits and pieces of her life. She had had lots of visitors. She's now part of a different ward that covers the location of the care facility. So, visitors from both wards came to see her. That was cool to hear. The most surprising thing she told us was her end-of-life planning. She was offered chemo, and she had to ask, "how much will that buy me?" Two or three months. "You want me to be miserable for the 6 to 12 months I've got, just to buy me two months? Forget that." Yes, she's pretty strong-willed like that. We talked about what she was going to do with her time. She gave us some thoughts she had had. I suggested that she write her memoir for posterity. She talked about her hands. She was born left-handed. But in those days schools forced everyone to write with their right hand. So, for all her life she was a clumsy writer. She never practiced enough with her left hand to get good. And she was never going to write well with her right hand. But after the stroke, she found that she was right-handed. She could write now. She believed that it was a sign that she should write something and believed my suggestion was inspired. She's got 6-12 months to live and she's really happy about it. She really can't wait to get her memoir done. And she is really looking forward to her final rest. I reckon that among her final words in this world will be to tell someone, "I'll see you soon."

You're asking us to explain things God himself chooses not explain: I was going to quote part of this, but now I'm thinking you should just read from Chapter 17 of Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, the section titled "We are eternal beings; we can advance toward exaltation as we obey the laws of God." The truth is not to be found in "good arguments" one way or the other. Those all come from fallen mankind who, really, aren't all that smart as a whole. It is the Spirit, the Holy Ghost, who teaches and testifies of truth. God has intentionally kept many things from us because one thing is most important: the gospel of Jesus Christ. Whether there are many worlds or one world, many universes or none, a beginning (which is far more absurd than the incomprehensible idea of no beginning) or only eternity, those facts will not lead you back to God. (I am not suggesting one be satisfied only with the knowledge one currently has, nor only with what's currently contained in scripture, but I am suggesting that without the Spirit, there is no knowledge, and the philosophies and "arguments" of man are foolishness to God.) In other words, seek the Spirit. If you aren't sure how to do that: 1. Read the Book of Mormon every day. 2. Start with the most recent General Conference talk by President Nelson, study it, implement it in your life, then move back to the previous one. Lather, rinse, repeat.

That was the case 3 decades ago and before. IMO, that's about the time it started to change, but maybe a little earlier or later, perhaps depending on region. In the past decade, Church leaders have explicitly said this was not the case and encouraged all adult members to prepare for and receive their endowment. Absolutely not true. I was endowed a few years before I had any prospect of marriage. Also, see above. I don't know how or why it became the norm not to be endowed until you were preparing for a mission or marriage, but those days are long past. i. Yeah, OK, but there are plenty of blessings to be had regardless of marital status. And I don't think I've ever been to an endowment session in my life where there weren't a lot more women present than men - often with the "extra" women sitting on the men's side - in separate rows, at the back (just to separate the women from the men somehow while still allowing all who wished to attend). ii. Smack those men. Way to show confidence in a sister's ability to remain faithful. Way to show confidence in repentance and grace. I'm gonna go look for that GC talk I remember encouraging everyone to get endowed...

My views on this subject have changed a great deal. Most of my change of mind and heart have come because of numerous times I have been will someone as they have died. One of the most profound experiences was the death of my father. For 6 months I had reserved a day to leave work early to take care of my father. It amounted to washing, feeding, ministering prescriptions, visiting and putting him to bed. It was difficult to get him to eat a proper diet and take his prescriptions. My advice to anyone else taking end of life care is do not worry about what they want to or do not want to eat and if they do not want to take any medications – do not force it upon them. My father died a very peaceful death, and it was a profound spiritual experience to be with him at his passing. I have also been giving aid to someone critically injured in an accident. I have deliberately lied, telling them that everything would be okay. That everything was under control (bleeding is stopped) and that paramedics would be there soon and that I would stay with them. Scripture (Book of Mormon) tells us that there is a time to live and a time to die. I do not know of any way we can know for sure when the time is for anyone to die – unless the spirit reveals it so. This is a time that we have advanced medical possibilities but also a time when the power of the priesthood is throughout the world and most available to the saints. I have witnessed the preservation of life through the priesthood, and I have also witnessed a blessing of comfort in death. It was an honor to bless my parents with my worthy brothers in the moments before his death. If I am to add anything to this thread – I would suggest that a priesthood anointing and blessing to honor the dying during their mortal conclusion is one of our church’s greatest blessings to its covenant saints. There is no greater ministering honor that I have experienced. The Traveler

https://askgramps.org/how-can-i-reconcile-the-message-of-gods-perfect-love-with-accounts-of-wrath-and-brutality/

This is a fiction. The Old Testament's Jehovah is not cruel. Unlike basically all of the pagan gods, Jehovah expected His people to be like Him—kind, patient, loving, generous.

Erm . . . I’m white, and I trace my Israelitish ancestry through Ephraim, and I’ve *never* demanded the Lord apologize for His earlier policy of giving the priesthood to Levites and withholding it from my people. I’ve never expected Orthodox Jews to apologize for it, either.

Of course it is. It's a college town. Most college students are living independently with little or no income and are therefore, definitionally, in poverty. That's not necessarily a bad thing; it's just a stage of life. The real problem is chronic poverty--by which I mean, an individual remains stuck in the bottom quintile of income, decade after decade, for most of their productive lives. I believe what @NeuroTypical was driving at, is that people who do those things will not stay in poverty. Indeed, but that's kind of my point. Crime doesn't follow poverty, it follows culture. So you won't solve it by giving people free stuff even as their moral values remain unchanged. (If it were, then people getting food stamps and Section 8 would never commit crimes, right?) Truly addressing crime requires a level of social and community engagement that is far more universal, and far harder, than just voting to give away the tax revenues of the people who didn't commit crimes. Frankly, I'm not sure it can be done except through the auspices of a Judeo-Christian religious renaissance--any government rapprochement with which, would throw half the country into conniptions while also creating genuine Constitutional issues. I think the problem is even more complicated and multifaceted than that. Originally you would only go to prison (defined as: be incarcerated for over one year) if you were convicted of a "felony", and there were only nine felonies: Murder, Robbery, Manslaughter, Rape, Sodomy (which at the time, meant male-on-male rape), Larceny, Arson, Mayhem, and Burglary (hence the law student's mnemonic, "Mr. & Mrs. Lamb"). We've had at least a century of politicians at both the state and federal level who want to be seen as "tough on crime", and who thus have moved more and more offenses into the realm of "felonies"; and in general I think that's a bad thing. Under classical common law, Michael Vick would never have gone to prison at all. I like animals, and I have no particular objection to laws against cruelty to animals or dogfighting or whatever Vick was convicted of. But I would agree with you that it shouldn't be a felony. I don't think I would quite agree with your notion that "our penal system was built on the idea that adults with bad programming can't be reprogrammed". Classical discussions of criminal justice all the way back to the Enlightenment have talked about the need to balance retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation. But there was certainly more of an emphasis on deterrence. I think that was due to the twin factors that a) there just wasn't a lot of science about human psychology and rehabilitation [which candidly, even now, I find is often not repeatable on a patient-to-patient basis] and b) in an era where science hadn't provided us with marvelously addictive substances--in most cases deterrence just plain worked on that subset of people who didn't drink themselves to an early death or eventually starved through their own indolence. Jail sucked, prison sucked worse, and people who were released really didn't want to go back there and were willing to change their lives accordingly. Speaking anecdotally and for my own jurisdiction (I have no idea what happens in others): People don't do prison, or even jail, for first- or second- or, often, even third-time drug offenses--even when the drug involved is the hard stuff like meth or heroin. What generally happens is they miss a hearing (maybe a pretrial hearing, or maybe a post-sentencing review on a piddling little diversion or a plea in abeyance agreement), the court issues a warrant, the criminal calls the court and sets a hearing in exchange for the warrant being vacated, and then the criminal blows that hearing too, and then we rinse and repeat three or four more times; and finally the judge says "Screw it. I'm issuing a $5,000 warrant, cash-only." If we can't get the people who need help to even show up to meetings with people who sincerely want to help them--what then? We still don't really know what to do with drug addicts. I'm too lazy to look up the stats, but I seem to remember being at a CLE recently where it was suggested that generally, residential drug treatment programs are something like 35-45% effective over the long term. For all our talk of rehabilitation, in many/most cases we just plain don't know how to do it reliably and well. None of this excuses our simply resigning ourselves to the status quo, or choosing to look the other way at a failing system. But I do think this is another example of the phenomenon I mentioned in another recent thread whereby 1. Progressives get their way and their values become commonplace (in this case: secularization, de-stigmatization of fornication and adultery and casual divorce, trivialization of abortion, acceptance of gangsta culture, erosion of academic standards and teachers' disciplinary authority in schools, de-stigmatization of gateway drug use, and a general deliberate rejection of any cultural traits that seemed to WASP-y); 2. A slough of second-order consequences ensues that leaves us worse off than we were before; and 3. My friends on the left demand we Do Something™, with with that Something (in this case, one that sounds an awful lot like trying to bribe criminals not to break the law) generally tending to limit my rights or dig into my pocketbook while, coincidentally, being something that past experience and precedent suggests is unlikely to yield a palpable improvement. This all makes me pretty reluctant to allow the left to set the agenda on future systemic reforms. Perhaps, as a certain president once suggested, we should agree that the people who created these problems "can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back." I don't oppose rehabilitation in principle. I work in my state's child welfare system and I see parents go through the best rehabilitative services that our government has to offer, every day. But I also see, on an individual level, that there is a point at which (if you'll forgive the use of economic lingo to discuss a social problem) the marginal utility of additional services doesn't justify the marginal cost of additional services. That will naturally vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction; but from a federal standpoint--after sixty years of a War on Poverty in which the poverty rate only went from 19% to a shade below 15% (and it's not even clear whether that was primarily due to government policy or market forces), I'm leery of demands (particularly, ones laden with emotional pleas) to simply put more money into the problem. So when I see an argument like the above, my initial gut reactions are: To put things bluntly: given the availability of food stamps and Pell grants, it's difficult for me to imagine why a mentally competent adult in this country would a) sincerely not know where their own or their children's next meal was going to come from [They might not know where their meals next month will come from, pending the results of the paperwork-intensive re-application process that many government programs put their clients through periodically; and yes, that is stressful. But, their next meal? No, I don't believe it.] or b) not be able to get into, and get funding for, a community college program. Additionally, in many urban areas, an alphabet soup of county and municipal level agencies offers everything from parenting courses to resume workshops to financial management and general life-skills classes. Before we go about creating new programs, I think we need to study why the programs we have seem to be such abysmal failures at reaching so many of the people who need them the most. PPACA was supposed to fix the problem of medical bankruptcies for lower-income families. If I understand the CBO website on PPACA correctly, the federal government provided $1.8 trillion in health insurance subsidies last year (my per capita share of that was around $5,400; and since I'm the sole breadwinner in a family of 8, that's actually $43,200). That's twice what I plan to give each of my kids as a combined college/mission/wedding fund--in three years, on one program alone (and a program that doesn't even work, to boot), the federal government will have frittered away everything I'll ever be able to save for my kids' futures. I sympathize with any family that continues to struggle with medical debt 14 years after the passage of PPACA. But frankly, the Democratic Party has shown itself incompetent to the point of malevolence at addressing this particular issue. Housing shortages and prices are certainly an issue. But again, traditional progressive policies including regulatory hostility to suburban expansion, various layers of red tape and occasional whining about "gentrification" in urban renovation/renewal, manipulation of the mortgage industry to favor pet constituencies, rent control in some urban areas, making eviction more difficult (thus deterring landlords from putting properties on the market in the first place), and competition with immigrant families who are often willing to pool resources and accept a lower standard of housing, all tend to exacerbate these issues. Additionally: Salt Lake City experimented with a "housing first" approach to chronic homelessness a few years ago. It failed. Spectacularly.

God bless you and your efforts @Carborendum. That said, the parents will and should win every single argument. You are helping, you are not deciding. Parents decide. And whatever they decide goes. Given the miraculous healthy and positive growth you're saying this girl is experiencing, I would literally suck up to the parents in any way possible to keep this arrangement going. Oh - and their bankruptcy isn't on you. There's no "part of that plan", there's their decisions and their consequences. You are doing the Lord's work with the girl. It's not your job to fix the parents. Let your light so shine, and leave it at that.

Three thoughts. At work I wear a black t-shirt over my garment top. A set of body armor over that and a dark blue uniform shirt over that. I wear dark blue pants. I wear black boots. I wear gear on a duty belt that is all black. Needless to say I am hot and uncomfortable year round for at least 40 hours a week. I have no patience for people who whine that their garments are hot and/or uncomfortable. I am eligible to wear black garments. Really...I am. I choose not to. I most likely will continue to wear the same mesh I've been wearing for decades.

Actually, I'd be okay with repentance.

7-0 We're getting a House of the Lord on the Westside!! https://www.8newsnow.com/news/local-news/las-vegas-city-council-to-vote-on-proposed-lds-temple/

We could, but I don’t think she’d like that either.

The arrogance of these sorts of readings of the Book of Mormon always kind of amazes me. Of course it's typical of so-called "academia". When they are learned they think they are wise, indeed. It's one thing to understand conceptually that the prophets aren't perfect. It's another thing entirely to point out specific imperfections, as if we are somehow more enlightened than they are and well suited to judge when, if, and how they weren't perfect. If and when the scriptures or a prophet explicitly states that something said was mistaken then I'll accept that. Until then, I think I'll assume that my imperfections are the problem rather than looking for theirs.

Might as well turn this thread into a scripture literacy thread:

I am convinced that a very great deal of what we know (or what we think we know) is not as important as we believe it to be. The knowledge we seek is truth, which is an understanding of how things really are, how things really were, and how things really will be. The key to this knowledge is to be utterly honest with yourself and, eventually, with others. And not all knowledge is of equal value. We all believe a whole litany of wrong things, yet God does not condemn us for that. When the paralytic at the pool of Bethesda told the Lord why he was there, the Lord did not chastise him nor even correct him for his superstitious belief in angels troubling waters and people being healed if they jump in first. He just healed the man according to his desires. At that point, the former paralytic knew important, soul-saving truth, which had nothing to do with going into a pool of water after an angel had disturbed it. The man probably still believed the angel thing, but so what? That was not important. The man's salvation depended on him believing in Christ, not something about angels troubling waters.

I read through the statements @mirkwood linked. From an outsider's perspective, wow! You bear a great responsibility to protect our founding documents and institutions. At the same time, it is proper and good to recognize the meaning of American exceptionalism. It is not absolute nor is it a birthright. Instead, it is a duty, requires training, and it calls for thoughtful commitment. Color me impressed. Concerning who should be the Commander in Chief, it must be a civilian, and the President is the right choice. Yes, the military and law enforcement are our protectors. However, democracy works because the "sheepdogs" serve the flock, rather than lording it over us. Power corrupts. We do well to equip our protectors properly, but to elect our leaders to watch over us--and them.

One of my children was cleaning out the garage and stumbled on some of my ancient photos developed in a drug store. He was so excited and questioned, this is you right? Yup. 1989 Texas Stadium pole vault portion of the decathlon. He is 16 and has been trying to dunk a basketball. I’ve been giving him advice that he has somewhat been listening to. After discovering the picture he has been more intent on following my coaching. I’m looking forward to the olympics in Paris.

Once upon a time there was an academic paper entitled "Mormon Apologetic Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: Losing The Battle and Not Knowing It" by Carl Mosser and Paul Owens. The pair were grad school students at an Evangelical seminary in 1997 when they decided to compare the then-current state of pro- and anti- works. To their horror, they discovered that most authors of the day who were critical of the faith had become intellectually lazy; rather than investigate matters for themselves, they were just taking old arguments that were often no longer valid, bundling them together with some unique spin, throwing in a bit of personal invective, and calling it a day. As a result, arguments that were years or even decades out of date were still in active circulation. We're nearly 30 years on, and their conclusion still holds true, as you yourself have just seen. Far too many people who are in mainline Christianity don't do their homework and so take what their minister or another "authority" figure teaches them at face value. They are therefore ignorant of the truth, and often that means they are ignorant of their own belief systems. This includes a failure to read the Bible cover-to-cover. This is actually where I'd recommend you start: read the scriptures cover-to-cover, ponder them, then start going through the Sunday school manuals. In particular, I would suggest reading the former Gospel Principles manual - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles?lang=eng . Build up your own knowledge and understanding first before you even think about seeking out others.