Leaderboard

A couple of weeks ago my two youth aged sons went to an LDS homeschoolers' prom. Many homeschooling groups got together to rent out a venue and invite LDS homeschoolers to this event. It became much more popular than they had anticipated. Tickets were selling so well that they didn't know if there would be enough room. My sons went on a triple date to this event (one couple came separately). They were really looking forward to it. They were laughing and having fun in all the precursor moments to the venue itself. When they arrived, everything seemed normal. But as soon as they got to the front door, my elder son (Bubba) just froze. The others didn't exactly freeze. But they just stopped laughing. They all looked at Bubba. He said "There's something wrong here." The others looked around. The foyer was empty except for the gatekeepers and security. But they all felt something. They knew something wasn't right with this event. They proceeded with caution. When they got into the main hall, they noticed about half the population were dressed in a manner absolutely NOT up to FSY standards. A good 50% of those were clearly of the LGBTQ variety (girls with girls, boys with boys, transgenders that absolutely would not "pass"). They met up with the third couple. Before the four of them could say anything, the third couple said, "Guys, we don't think we should be here. There's something wrong." Flashback: When the group went to pick up girl #3, the father of this girl, didn't address boy #3. He addressed Bubba. "If you get there and there's something wrong. You're in charge of making sure she gets home safe. Understand?" My son understood and agreed. I thought it was odd that her date (boy #3) was not the one in charge of keeping her safe. But because of this, they all agreed that they'd better leave. The rules of the event required that the youth had to get parental permission to leave early. It took about an hour to get permission for all six of them. But they finally left. (A fourth couple they knew was also there. They said they also felt it. But they weren't going to leave because of it. They paid a lot of money for these tickets.) Eventually, they decided to just go around and do something fun. They didn't go into details. But they did end up having a good time and they returned home safely. All of them eventually attended to smaller proms in the weeks that followed. But they had fun. Girl #3 had to go to three more. Prom #2 and #3 also had a similar phenomenon. Prom #4 was the charm. And she got to remain and have fun. We can try to be tolerant all we want, just as we're tolerant of all God's children. And guess what? All of God's children sin. But this was different. To hear my sons describe it, it almost felt like they were watching pornography. They had to get themselves out lest they be consumed. The biggest issue here is not whether someone sins (of any variety). It was that the sin was "accepted" as righteous behavior. No. Sin is sin. We all sin. But the thing that separates the righteous vs the wicked is whether we're striving to overcome sin vs accepting it (either giving up or believing there is nothing wrong with it). This was a room where half the people had apparently believed there was not only nothing wrong with it. But that it was actually "preferred" behavior. Yes, there was something very wrong there.

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

Over the years, I've given this phrase: Many who fall away from the Gospel of Jesus Christ will do so because they've chosen the path of "creating God in their own image." This is what pretty much everyone does. It is the great sin of pride that allows us to believe that we believe in a God that suits our needs, rather than trying to change ourselves to meet what God requires of us. The Old Testament is replete with story after story of the children of Israel going off to worship Baal and Ashtaroth. Why was this so habitual? Simple. They thought there was something wrong with the Law of Moses. They didn't want to obey all the statutes. And they really didn't want to worship / love a god who would require such things of them. Why Baal and Ashtaroth? Because they were "moldable" gods. Baal for instance, was called a storm god, a sun god, a fertility god... the list goes on. And Ashtaroth and Asherah were sometimes considered the same being and other times two separate gods. They were whatever the people wanted them to be. You don't like people telling you what you're doing is wrong? Just make a god who tells you that you're ok just as you are. What the heck is a commandment anyway? One reason we find it easier to love God and hate our brother is that we can't deny who our brother is. We love not God, but our "image" of God. The graven image in our minds is nothing like the actual Being who created us. Instead, we create our own god. The task before us is to discover the Living God. He who exists. Jehovah. We do not create an image in our minds of what we believe he should be like to be "worthy of my worship". Even as we study scriptures, we see something that doesn't make sense, we say, "Oh that must be a mistranslation." Or "I can't believe in a god who does that." Once we find that the Lord has required or done something we disagree with, our impulse then is to think there was something wrong with HIM. Instead we're asked to be humbled by the knowledge that maybe we don't know what he's really like. Maybe we need to change OUR concept of good and evil. Maybe we just plain don't know the whole story -- and it was only under extreme circumstances where the wickedness of man forced His hand to do something that we consider "bad" to begin a new era of "good". Maybe we are only a worm. Maybe we should be declaring "Oh, wretched man that I am." Maybe we should stop wondering why He isn't behaving like a good little god.

Well, the oncology stuff (radiation and chemo) is all done, and all that is left is to wait a couple of months and go under the knife. Radiation treatments have been rough the last couple of weeks. Not quite as debilitating as the chemo, but a daily battle with fatigue and occasional concerns about making it to the bathroom on time, and it hasn't been fun. In theory, things should improve over the next few weeks.

Colorado has had red flag bills on the books for a few years now. It sounds so dang appealing - your crazy uncle says he's had it, and he's gonna go shoot up a police station tomorrow. You call the cops, they get a judge to sign off on things, and they go separate him from his guns before he can do something bad. He has mental health and law enforcement hoops to jump through before he gets his guns back. What could possibly go wrong? I have two issues. First, not a fan of the government searching/seizing your property to prevent something someone MIGHT do. Not a fan of potential abuses - angry ex-lovers, evil bosses who want to get you in trouble, political or cultural retaliation from activists - hooray, we now have new ways to remove someone's liberties from them through fraudulent activity! Second, it didn't stop the Boulder King Soopers shooting, even though the guy had a big list of friends and family jumping up and down and warning everyone they could find that he was about to do something horrible. I'm ok with hardening schools, and glad to hear democrats are finally ending their opposition to such things.

I believe the answer was given in the 2022 General Conference by Elder Dallin Oaks on woke doctrine. ---------------------------------------------------------- Fundamental to us is God’s revelation that exaltation can be attained only through faithfulness to the covenants of an eternal marriage between a man and a woman. That divine doctrine is why we teach that “gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” That is also why the Lord has required His restored Church to oppose social and legal pressures to retreat from His doctrine of marriage between a man and a woman, to oppose changes that homogenize the differences between men and women or confuse or alter gender. The restored Church’s positions on these fundamentals frequently provoke opposition. We understand that. Our Heavenly Father’s plan allows for “opposition in all things,” and Satan’s most strenuous opposition is directed at whatever is most important to that plan. Consequently, he seeks to oppose progress toward exaltation by distorting marriage, discouraging childbearing, or confusing gender. However, we know that in the long run, the divine purpose and plan of our loving Heavenly Father will not be changed . . . A uniquely valuable teaching to help us prepare for eternal life, “the greatest of all the gifts of God,” is the 1995 proclamation on the family. Its declarations are, of course, different from some current laws, practices, and advocacy, such as cohabitation and same-sex marriage. Those who do not fully understand the Father’s loving plan for His children may consider this family proclamation no more than a changeable statement of policy. In contrast, we affirm that the family proclamation, founded on irrevocable doctrine, defines the kind of family relationships where the most important part of our eternal development can occur.

Doesn’t the prophecy end with the prophets being killed, their bodies lying in the streets for a couple of days, and then being resurrected and ascended to Heaven? The idea of translated beings being mortal again, seems problematic.

Be cautious what you support in this world for God will not hold us blameless for what we allow into our hearts: Vice is a monster of so frightful mien As to be hated needs but to be seen; Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, We first endure, then pity, then embrace. -Alexander Pope

Meanwhile, the media and Democrats studiously look the other way while our cities burn. I voted for Trump in 2020. I think his SC appointments will be his lasting legacy. I believe I misunderstood his (admittedly base and crude) sense of humor before listening to much of it, which is where most of the animus against him originates. I am no huge fan of Trump, but nothing I have seen from the highly biased media has convinced me he's likely guilty of anything beyond stinking rotten politics. The rioters, on the other hand, were fomenting and actually committing criminal acts in the name of revolution (aka sedition), just as the pro-abortionists are now doing, literally threatening the lives of Supreme Court justices. Somehow, this has been utterly forgotten (read: covered up) by the media, replaced by a handful of drunken yahoos whose "storming of the Capitol" involved walking around armed and stealing souvenirs. The uneven enforcement isn't even hidden any more. If I'm cynical, it's because the media are a bunch of liars.

From at least the time I was 12 years old, literally from my childhood, I have wondered why so many used the growth of the Church as some sort of testimony of its truthfulness. As I've gotten older, I have decided that the simplest explanation is also the best: the Argumentum ad Populum. But the word of the Lord makes it clear that, until he comes and brings again Zion, his people will always form just a small minority of the earth's population. It's fun to watch the Church grow, but I have seen many online anti-LDS and those weak in the faith who have argued that the Church's diminishing growth is evidence of its lack of divine approval. If we're going to go by absolute numbers to determine what truth is, we should all be Roman Catholics*. *(For whom I have gained a lot of respect over the years. If I were to leave the Restored Church of Christ but remain a nominal Christian, I would almost certainly become a Roman Catholic. For all the theological problems of their doctrines and practices, they produce some very decent people, and offer the only real alternative to continuity of Priesthood authority from the time of the Lord's mortal sojourn until now. I'm no Catholic basher.)

I think the point Carbs is making is that, unlike pro-lifers, we don’t take an absolute position that life begins at conception or that *all* abortion is tantamount to killing. We feel it’s “close enough” that we generally support restriction/prohibition of elective abortion, but we don’t camp out at abortion clinics shrieking “murderer!” And dumping blood on people. The subset of LDS who openly advocate elective abortion, I think, aren’t necessarily missing any deep theology that specifically addresses precisely when life begins. What they are missing, I think, is a broader understanding of chastity and the meaning of life and how to find personal fulfillment. The pro-elective-abortion movement, at its core, assumes that a) consequence-free indulgence of human appetites are so essential to the human condition that at least some of them—especially sex—ought to be regarded as a human right; and b) that the denial of this “right” fundamentally makes life not worth living. There’s a whole constellation of social issues and life problems that ultimately arise from the interplay of these two assumptions—abortion, LGBTQ issues, sexual violence, divorce, fatherlessness (and, via fatherlessness, crime and poverty generally), the “crisis of connection”, mental health, obesity, suicide . . . The Church is not immune from these trends; and it becomes further entangled in them to the extent that its youth become caught up in the broader secular disregard for the principles of chastity and self-sacrifice and healthy human relationships.

I think you’ve pretty much nailed it. Zion constructs, Babylon deconstructs. Zion produces, Babylon consumes. Zion is inherently orderly, Babylon necessarily chaotic. Zion produces the milk; Babylon can only skim the cream.

Figured I would link directly to the court opinion so everyone could read for themselves: US Supreme Court Case NYSRPA vs Bruen

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

I've started two new habits. The first is to spend an hour or so every evening in the churchyard amongst the graves, reading the Bible on my smartphone. My wife asked me the last two nights if anyone (meaning dead people) came and talked to me. I told her no, but one thing that did come to me how poor my prayer life is. People say praying should be just like talking to anyone else, but do you sometimes feel like your words are just going out into the air unheard? The thought makes me weary and (strangely) a bit tongue- tied and my prayers often peter out rather pathetically. But there is another thing I have seen at my wife's "Julian" group (Lady Julian of Norwich, in case you didn't know, was a medieval mystic. "And all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well". [Yes I know T.S. Eliot wrote that, but Julian wrote it first].) They sit for half an hour or so in silence trying to empty their minds and wait for God to speak to them. So I tried it this evening for just 15 minutes. God didn't speak to me in words exactly, but I did get a kind of peace from it that I've missed for a long time. By the way, my wife is in hospital now having her surgery. I have tried contacting the hospital for news but the phone just rings and rings. I'm sure they would have contacted me a next of kin if anything had gone wrong but still... I hope I can get through tomorrow. All prayers welcome and much appreciated. Jamie

I agree with nearly all of this; but write separately to note that what happened on January 6 was a mob, not an insurrection. The perpetrators, IMHO, ought to have been horsewhipped, and I’ll even go so far as to say that Ashli Babbitt’s shooting was most likely justified and it seems to me that she basically earned herself a Darwin Award. Nevertheless, there is a difference between a mob and an insurrection; and that difference is being deliberately blurred for political reasons.

The other piece of this puzzle is funding - If I could have my way based on my opinion; I would do away with all federal funding of education (especially at the college level of research grants). I believe education and funding of all education is a STATE not federal right and responsibility. I am somewhat discouraged that the discussions on this topic seem to be addressed at the federal level by federal entities. I do not believe this can end well. The Traveler

Arming teachers is not about having the cafeteria lady and pre-algebra teachers patrolling the playground with M4s. It’s about school districts allowing, and maybe even paying for, concealed carry permits, classes, and regular trainings. It’s also not about saying the teachers are in charge of safety, but just having an extra precaution in case of a shooter situation. It’s not a solution, but rather another roadblock to prevent a bad situation becoming worst. The problem is mental health and having 1,000 kids, who are trying to figure out who they are, all trapped in a building together 8 hours a day half the year. The fix? Easy. Everyone is homeschooled by parents who are morally pure and have the ability to teach their kids. If a child shows signs of mental health struggles, they get to meet with a good therapist to help them…Actually… nvm… that isn’t simple, finding a good therapist is nearly impossible. This plan won’t work.

I finished the entire Book of Isaiah for the first time a few days ago. My eyes have now read through all sixty-six chapters for the first time.

From Revelation 11:6 They will replicate the miracles of Elijah (who shut the heavens) and Moses (who turned water to blood). This leads to the speculation that Moses and Elijah themselves will be the two prophets, but as far as I know only the LDS tradition has a translated Moses (Enoch’s translation may be why he’s included as Elijah’s companion, but I’m unfamiliar with that rumor). For Latter-day Saints, we already have the authority of both Moses and Elijah, so we don’t need the ancient prophets there personally to fulfill this prophecy (just like we don’t need Peter, James, and John to come to Jerusalem to set up a ward or branch there).

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

Elder Uchtdorf comes across as very “warm fuzzy” in his discourses, but everything I’ve heard suggests that when counseling people in-person he is very rigidly “by the book”. Assuming he re-enters the First Presidency, I don’t think he’ll be the pushover that the progmos are expecting. (And of course, he was in the First Presidency when the November 2015 policy was announced. He doesn’t get a lot of blame for that policy, but by then President Monson was in steep decline and President Eyring doesn’t seem the type to ram through sweeping controversial policy changes on his own initiative over a colleague’s objection.) Elder Gong, as a 70, appeared in some of those leaked videos of Q12 meetings a few years back and wasn’t exactly an advocate for social change; and my own (increasingly dated) experience with church leaders from Brazil (Elder Soared’s homeland) that they tend to be a pretty hard-nosed bunch—they grew up in a deeply profligate society, dealt with the fallout on a daily basis, and generally had little patience for impenitent sexual libertines. On the broader issue here: Elder Bednar’s recent talk to the National Press Club openly touted the church’s work with the LGBTQ lobby on housing and other non discrimination issues. For PR purposes, at least, the church seems to be trying to surf the wave—to a point. The more interesting question to me is whether, in broader society, the LGBTQ lobby has overplayed its hand in its outreach efforts to children—particularly to children in school, and behind the backs of these children’s parents. It’s still early, but I note a lot fewer rainbows on my Facebook feed this month than I did last year; and a lot more people openly and fearlessly mocking corporate wokeist hypocrisy. I don’t think the battle is over—not by a long shot—but given this country’s other issues, I think a lot of people are (at least momentarily) torqued off that the LGBTQ lobby seems more interested in making sure that kids are gettin’ it on, than in making sure that those same kids actually have food on their tables. Time will tell what the long-term ramifications of this discontent may be. But for the present, my sense is that a lot of “allies” are lying low, plotting their next move, and waiting for November to pass.

So, my family just spent a week at Nauvoo. The weather has been really pleasant. Interesting changes. Apparently, the Church recognized that with as many years as the historic reconstruction has been in existence, many urban myths about Nauvoo had crept into the narrative. So, a concerted effort was made to consult historians and search through first-hand accounts to verify every story that was told about the various sites & individuals throughout Nauvoo. One thing that disappointed the kids was that they no longer handed out the rings made from horseshoe nails. Apparently the story behind it was a myth. They also cut down the presentation for John Browning's shop. I remember it being much longer. But they took out what they couldn't verify from first-hand accounts. I found many of the presenters in all areas of Nauvoo were very happy to simply say "we don't know." The Carthage visit also changed. And I actually found the new tour to be more meaningful. Someone had asked whether Joseph died and then fell, or if he lept and was shot on the way down or if he died from the fall, or if he died from being shot afterward. They were happy to say they didn't know. I pointed out that we know that he was alive as he left the window because first hand accounts say he cried out "O, Lord, my God!" In that two or three second interval between leaping and death, how is anyone supposed to know whether the fall or the many bullets killed him, much less the bullets before or after the fall. We did baptisms in the temple and I noticed these marble pilasters in the assembly hall. I asked if the original temple had marble pilasters as well. I was told that they did. The next day we did endowments. When in the Celestial Room, I was admiring the workmanship of the marble. But I noticed something strange about it. It wasn't marble! It was painted "something". It could be wood or paper for all I knew. It wasn't stone or metal. But it was covered in paint. But I considered something. The paint job was perfect. The marbling pattern in and out of the flutes was exactly how it would be in real marble. It was expertly done. When waiting in the chapel, the officiator came to me and asked if we could be the witness couple. But he pointed to me and my daughter. All three of us had an amused, yet, quizzical look. He thought I was young enough to be married to my daughter. Or he thought my daughter was old enough to be married to me. Anyway, I pointed out that I was holding hands with my wife who was seated to my right. My wife pointed out that it was probably because I was laughing (quietly) at my daughter pointing out the amusing phrasing of Abraham 1:1. There was a fun song that was played in those days called "A Gallant Ship Is Under Way". I had to ask if anyone else noticed the similarities with "Old MacDonald". None of my family noticed. But when I asked the musicians, they hummed a few bars and realized I was right. I never knew that the Nauvoo Brass band was employed in what we today might call panhandling during the trek west. The Brass Band was one means of income/food as they traveled through cities and towns along the way. Pioneer Pass-times was as annoying as ever. We visited the gravesites of the Smith Family. Joseph and Hyrum's bodies were moved several places prior to their final resting place. And the current lot is under a small building. So, highly unlikely that they will be exhumed. As we went by the renamed "Trail of Hope" and read the placards taken from the journals of individuals who walked it, I realized that these stories are OUR stories. I have no pioneer ancestry. My wife does. But it isn't about our families. It is about our faith. People died and suffered to hallow the ground and hallow our dispensation to allow us to have the blessings of this dispensation. Also, because we've been studying the Old Testament this year, I noticed the parallels between Joseph and Moses, Brigham and Joshua, the Ancient Israelites and the pioneer generation. The River Jordan was the Mississippi. Utah is Israel. I would wonder who will be the "judges"? Who will be "Samuel"? Where will we raise our Ebenezer?

Do you strive to be honest in all that you do? (Not aimed at you directly) When one knowingly and intentionally says something that is untrue, at a minimum, they are being dishonest. Therefore, at the very least, knowingly using pronouns that identify someone as something they are not, is dishonest. It does not matter one iota if the purpose appears to be noble. Justifying using false pronouns prepares the way to further justify dishonesty, deception, and sin. This is another avenue of attack Satan is using in his quest to gradually bring down society. Sadly, it will very likely have a damning effect on many, because of where it may ultimately lead them.

A couple months ago I posted that I had decided to donate to Ammo Inc to supply ammunition to the Ukrainian army. They responded saying that they want to handle that by having donations go to the charity: CARE. I donated to them. I received a thank you note in the mail saying that they were grateful that I had donated to fight climate change. ??? I was very upset. Needless to say I stopped all communications. Today I just got a mailing from the March of Dimes asking for donations. I thought, "How about that! There's a charity I can get behind." Then I read what they were asking money for. They are chartered to support women and babies in need of medical care. That sure sounded ok. But there was something very odd about the wording and how they were saying some things and not saying others. They especially talked about how many women die in child birth in the US. When they say that they were able to reduce the number of babies born with birth defects. My alarm bells went off. I looked them up. Apparently, they are another charity that funds and encourages abortions. Is this old news? Do most people know that already? Dang! I've got to look into every donation I've made and see what they're really like underneath. I may just stop donating to any cause because everyone hides their real activities under the veneer of helping children. At least I'll be ok with tithing and fast offerings. Sheesh! Can I not donate to any other cause and feel like I'm helping some cause I actually support?

It dawns on me, I haven’t heard two phrases in over a month: ”Birthing person” “Hate speech”

They want to kill babies. Why would you think they might not want to kill anyone and everyone who disagrees with them?

Agreed, police forces are not the primary culprit behind such selective treatment. When I was at Penn State in the early 1990s, there was a (minority, obviously) conservative newspaper on campus that had all its papers stolen two or three times. The perps were finally caught; two young women. Upon their admission to having stolen the newspapers, their judge refused to pass any significant punishment on them other than saying "tsk, tsk". Not even a fine. Not even a demand for court costs. Rather, the judge made it crystal clear that any revenge newspaper-stealing by conservatives would be met with the full authority of the courts. This kind of hypocrisy of uneven enforcement based on whether or not you're leftist is hardly new.

That’s all true, but in modern times using the terms “pro choice” and “pro life” are the easiest ways to determine someones views on the abortion issue. Of course it’s vastly more complex than that-but those terms suit the argument just fine.

Elder Bednar believes agency is the least understood gospel principle. Do you think his comments would indicate that it's our responsibility not to justify the sins of others? I'm sure he's mostly speaking of our individual actions, but he also mentioned our agency being enlarged, which I take it as impacting more than just self.

I've heard of this in variant forms, primarily about plain old-fashioned homosexuality specifically. Since then, I've spent some time thinking about it. And there may be a logic to it. But when we bring in the Plan of Salvation into it, the picture changes quite a bit. Scientifically, naturally, according to man's understanding: It is possible that nature has some mechanism that says that the available elements, nutrients, resources, etc. can only successfully sustain evolutionary natural selection trends to a certain point. After that point, some nutrient deficiency will trigger a trend of increased non-heterosexual behavior. Perhaps, a look at all the nutrients required for human biology have a limiting element that specifically effects heterosexual tendencies. It's within the realm of reasonableness. Counterpoint: If we believe only in man's science as described above, then it stands to reason that non-heterosexual individuals are specifically NOT supposed to reproduce. They are specifically NOT supposed to raise/rear children. Nature itself is demanding that this be the case. So, why would we allow these individuals to propagate the species? Their argument completely falls apart on their own terms. Yet, trans men are being placed in jail cells with biological women and impregnating them. Gay couples are being allowed to adopt and use surrogates to make babies just so they can be raised by homosexual couples? Consider the Plan of Salvation: The Lord has told us: Multiply & replenish the earth. There is enough and to spare. If these are both true, then the theory should not be used to justify non-heterosexual behavior. Either way, homosexual propagation, raising, or rearing is not justified.

There was. I can't find it anymore. Thanks, Twitter (I'm guessing). The "uniforms" were a group of people all clad in black with masks -- like you'd see from ANTIFA, but you could see by their mannerisms that they were not ANTIFA. They were something else. The weapons were the wood posts that some were using to carry signs that were then used to try to break the glass on the buildings. That was the point where they shot the tear gas at the protesters. And there was video of the palm tree outside smoking. But it isn't clear if that was from the police or the protesters. From the police website: So, just like Jan 6, the majority were protesting peacefully. But there were agitators. And I believe it was those agitators I saw in black.

It was a comet that had not been discovered at the time of the transmission. https://phys.org/news/2017-06-wow-mystery-space.html This was apparently disputed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow!_signal I have no idea why they cited the second source (New Scientist) as discrediting the comet theory, when it clearly supports it. The other two make some good arguments. But they are no stronger than the arguments made by Antonio Paris. And the biggest problems they have with the comet idea can be explained by the fact that two of them were in the vicinity at the time and there was some interaction.

I don’t believe the blue states would let the red states go. They view red-staters as latter-day nazis and would-be slaveholders; our ongoing containment (if not subjugation) is their moral duty. They are willing to kill for that; some are even willing to die for it (see, eg, Rittenhouse’s attackers); they are certainly willing to push “launch” buttons on non-nuclear missiles and “fire” buttons on drones. Even if such a divorce miraculously went well for conservatives: the measures that it would require to keep the new “red America” ideologically and culturally pure enough to prevent it from turning “blue” within a couple more generations, would make “red America” drastically different from any previous iteration of the United States of America. I’m not sure such a result would be worth the sacrifice necessary to bring it about. Lately I’ve been thinking much less about “conservative vs liberal”, and much more about “Zion vs not-Zion”.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/06/23/us/gun-control-supreme-court-ny Major victory for gun rights!

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

It should probably be noted that in 1 Samuel 13, Saul is in a desperate situation —he and his 3000 men have just picked a fight with the Philistines, they respond with 30,000 men, Saul wants to offer sacrifice before the battle and Samuel is nowhere to be found. (And Samuel isn’t even a Levite anyways; if an Ephraimite judge can offer sacrifice, then why not a Benjaminite king? All other near eastern kings were seen as having a priestly role, and basically being a sort of junior partner with the nation’s god. By the standards of every culture in the region, Samuel should be completely extraneous at this point.) Similarly, Israel has spent the last couple of centuries basically being the punching bag of every other nation in the region (not to mention ongoing genocidal internecine warfare). There was real suffering and desperation, and a craving for stability and certainty and safety; and sometimes when we are in that emotional state we just don’t make very good decisions. Israel’s challenge, and Saul’s, and ours, is whether we have the patience and courage to “stand still and see the salvation of the Lord”, or whether we will yield to the panicked shrieks of those who demand that we use the secular channels available to us in order to Do Something™.

I adore my assistant principle. She's a lovely woman and a good leader. She's also a transplant from out of the Mormon Corridor, very progressive-liberal and "woke", and as far as I'm aware has never been a member of the church (as in she now and then asks "dumb questions" about our students' beliefs). Anyway, today in the group chat to inspire us through the last day of school she shared a Jeffery R. Holland quote. It's fun to see good stuff being recognized all over.

https://thehill.com/news/senate/3520521-mcconnell-touts-support-of-bipartisan-product-after-senate-gun-proposal-announced/ https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/12/politics/senate-gun-safety-agreement/index.html Apparently a gun control bill is about to pass Congress and the White House. Here are the highlights: Money being spent on mental health centers and resources (including suicide prevention). And funding for schools and mental health. Buyers under 21 have an enhanced background check. Resources for states to remove guns from people who have been adjudicated as a danger to themselves or others. NICS will include domestic abusers and those who have restraining orders on them. Closes loop holes on who is a federally licensed firearms dealer. There was apparently a loophole that some could act as a dealer regarding purchasing from a manufacturer, but they did not qualify when it came to selling them to the public. So, some people were able to buy without a background check. Cracks down on straw purchases. #1: I think most of us can get behind that one. #2: I think this is ok. But if it is applied in such a manner that it ends up being an outright ban on those between 18 - 21, it is just the camel's nose in the tent. #3 & #4: I support this in spirit. But I see the potential for over-reaching government to oppressively apply this. If one is mentally adjudicated as a danger to others simply because they want to buy a gun... And, yes, many on the left have declared this is their goal. No shame, no apologies, no exclusions, no conditions. If you want to own a gun, you should be declared mentally insane. As history has shown, what is fringe liberal today will be common liberal tomorrow. #5: I didn't really know much about this. Apparently it is a thing. I'm not convinced that the statistic from "Every town for gun safety" is accurate. But it is clear that it happens. And I'm all for having a background check for everyone. But what will this end up looking like? #6: I figured this happened on some level. I don't know how big a problem it is. But I fear that this will get many people arrested for simply wanting to make some money on the sale of a gun. So, my three rules? Let's see if it works? 1) Not a re-hash of laws already on the books? I'm not aware of any laws that cover these things already as far as gun safety. 2) Proven to reduce gun crime? I believe the mental health stuff is understood to be a big factor in gun crimes. But what percentage? And is it going to make a big enough dent? I don't know. But overall, it seems benign enough to give it a try. 3) Not an outright gun ban? We'll see if it ends up banning guns from a lot of people who should have a right to purchase and own a gun. Again, it sure seems benign enough. But I'm just not sure how it will be applied.

I don't know if I can get behind any of these other than a greater mental health service in schools (I'll tell you right now, too many parents aren't handling it). The rest are all that proverbial camel.

Pretty sure that advice is more carefully worded today, something like, "Every young man should prepare to serve a full time mission."

This is surprisingly fresh coming from you. It is a very insightful question. The answer comes from Explanation: To the ancient Jews (of which Nephi was one) the word attributed to "living" human beings referred to animated things (not vegetation, for example). And the fact that Adam and Eve were able to move around, they were living. But Nephi is trying to emphasize that such life has no meaning if there isn't an ability to do something meaningful (duh). If the only choices they can make are things that don't make a difference, they aren't really alive in the spiritual sense. So, they simply "exist" as a rock or a tree does. So, the fundamental difference between Christ's teachings and mainstream Christianity is that of choice. Christ taught that we can choose between Liberty and Eternal Life or captivity and death. The ultimate death is to have no choices at all (Hell). You're asking about an inherent ability vs the realization of that ability. I have the ability to play the piano. But if I can't find a piano, I can't actually play. In the case of Adam and Eve, they could have always chosen to disobey God. But they simply had no motivation to do so. It was only after Satan put certain thoughts into their hearts that they discovered a motivation to do so. You're misleading now. Just because something happened after does not mean it was a direct result of (causation vs correlation). The thing that made them "as gods" (see below) was the fact that they now had the ability to understand the nature of choice between good and evil. But they only began to understand it after having experienced a real choice between good and evil. What separates us from lower life forms? Are we any different than apes? Why? Think about it. The Church of Jesus Christ teaches that we were made "a little lower than angels" (Heb 2:9) and that He created man in His OWN IMAGE (Gen 1:27). So, we share characteristics of divinity. And one thing we share is our ability to choose between good and evil. Adam and Eve were as little children. Do children understand good and evil? Only on an extremely rudimentary level. But as we grow and become exposed to the differences, we begin to understand the real nature of good/evil and ability to choose between them. Whatever the forbidden fruit was (literal or figurative, doesn't matter) it represents our loss of innocence. It represents our very real choice between what we know and understand to be good and evil. Once Adam and Eve went through that process, they had real choices. And they chose the good over the bad the remainder of their days.

We had a GA at stake conference not address this directly, but essentially said that if you're following the world, not the church, you'd better wake up and get onboard.

I understand, and that’s fair. I will just say: wickedness comes in many forms. Stick closely to the Church’s living priesthood authorities, no matter what the JSF may encourage you to do either now or in the future.

The handbook states their prefered name may be used. It does not say it must be, nor does it say preferred pronouns need to be. I am willing to use almost any name a person wants, as long as it is their legal name and is not overly bizzare. If Bob changes his name to Sally, then his name is Sally. Stupid choice, but that is his name. I would likely call him Sal for short. I will not however...use preferred pronouns. Caitlyn Jenner for example is Caitlyn...that is his legal name on his drivers license. He is male though...end of story. I will not call him a she.

I think the point of negation is when the companionship of the Holy Ghost is muted to the point of disunity with Zion, and where the covenants of the Restoration are avoided and broken. The Family Proclamation is a great guide for every family or any denomination or faith tradition.

As we consider all this "stuff" - I would make two comments" First: It is possible that genetics are sometimes messed up. I realize that a baby can be born with physical genetics that run a spectrum rather than a one or another demarcation. I understand that a child can be born with varying physical genetic confusion. For the record - I do not think this is a good thing. I also do not think this is what is going on to cause almost all what is going on with the current gender confusion. I also believe we should regard all humans (despite genetic conditions) as children of G-d. If any individual has a defect - we should encourage them to seek corrections when possible. I am not so sure we ought to support going from something that is not considered a defect - to something else (defective or not). The second comment has to do with something I experienced in college in a psychology 101 class. One day at the end of class the teacher called out the names of most of the class to stay behind. After the few that were not called out had left the professor requested that at our next class when he displayed the color blue that we would all respond that the color was red. At our next class the professor displayed a large color card and asked what color was being displayed. The class all agreed on the color. Then the professor displayed a blue card. One by one all the students (that were told to say so) responded with red. What was interesting was that even the students that knew otherwise but were not part of the plot, likewise responded with red. This phenomenon had a name (that I do not recall) but the idea that people would go along with something that was obviously wrong because they do not want to appear "different". What surprised me the most is how easy it was to convince them to go along weather it be someone like myself that was asked to help with the deception or those that knew otherwise but did not want to appear to oppose. I honestly believe that many individuals with reasonable intelligence are caught up in this whole LGBTQ+ because it is a thing of our time. I speculate we are watching one heck of a social experiment of people that would otherwise think more logically being easily coerced to go along with the scam - especially when it involves someone that they care for deeply. The Traveler

Digging through the lies and misinformation about the Uvalde, TX shooting (lawenforcementtoday.com) Digging through the lies and misinformation about the Uvalde, Texas massacre – here are all the facts (and false claims) The following editorial is attributed primarily to Georgia Law Enforcement from their Facebook page, along with editorial content written by the author. — Anytime there is a tragedy in our country, especially something as egregious as a school shooting, it is important to separate fact from fiction. Unfortunately, in the internet age, stories and rumors get spread, often times without attribution, and lies go viral. The recent school shooting in Uvalde, Texas is sadly no different. Georgia Law Enforcement, on their Facebook page took the claims one by one and explained that every single one of them was either proven to be completely false or partially false. With attribution to Georgia Law Enforcement, here they are: CLAIM The exterior door to the school was propped open when the gunman entered. FALSE A teacher heard the shooter wreck his truck, ran outside to call 911, and was told by a neighboring funeral home that he had a gun. She ran back inside while removing a rock that was propping the door open. The doors are supposed to automatically lock when they close, but it didn’t. That cause is being investigated. CLAIM Police were too scared to enter the school until Border Patrol got there. FALSE Police entered the school 4 minutes after the initial 911 call. As they approached the classroom where the shooter was, he shot through the wall injuring 2 officers. Police could not return fire for risk of injuring kids inside, and they were only equipped with handguns. CLAIM A border Patrol agent retrieved a shotgun from his barber, and entered the school to take out the shooter because the police wouldn’t. FALSE An agent did retrieve a shotgun from his barber and entered the school, but he stacked up in the hallway with police. CLAIM Police sat in the hallway for 40 minutes while the shooter killed 19 kids. FALSE The shooter shot 18 kids in the 4 minutes before the police entered the building. He then shot 2 of those officers, but there wasn’t a single shot fired from the time they dragged both officers out until BORTAC arrived on scene. During that time, police kept the gunman pinned in one location, evacuated the rest of the school, and eventually found the Principal who was hiding with the master key. EDIT 6/2/22 @ 1pm It was initially understood that BORTAC called out to the students inside the classroom, and the gunman shot the girl who did; however, we’ve just received a message from a Uvalde family stating that a boy inside the classroom said “to fool everyone in the room the gunman yelled out “if anyone needs help. Yell Help.” A girl in the classroom yelled and the gunman shot her. This is what prompted BORTAC to breach the door. CLAIM Police should’ve found a way to breach the door earlier. MOSTLY-FALSE There is no one right answer in these situations as there are too many variables; however, the police were shot through a concrete wall. The classroom door was an outward opening steel door set into a concrete wall with a steel door frame. This type of door is incredibly difficult to breach without special tools, and they are designed to keep active shooters out. At the time the police were able to regroup after dragging the injured officers out, the shooting had stopped. This classified the situation as a barricaded gunman with hostages. Rushing a hostage taker will often force them to begin executing hostages, and this is especially true if you cannot breach a door within a split second and utilize the element of surprise. An example of this can be seen with the little girl that the gunman killed as BORTAC was preparing to breach. CLAIM The police admitted that they screwed up and made the wrong call in a press conference. FALSE A Texas DPS official who was speaking from a place of emotion made some statements that have been completely taken out of context. During these situations, in the moment, you only know what you know, and you don’t know what you don’t know. Decisions can only be made based on what you know at the time. “With the benefit of hindsight, where I’m sitting now, of course it was not the right decision, it was the wrong decision, period,” Col. McCraw said. The keywords in the above statement are “with the benefit of hindsight” and “where I’m sitting right now.” His remarks stating that it was the wrong decision come from the luxury of having more information on hand and more time to evaluate that information than any of the officers who were on scene during the shooting had. Everyone is taking this quote out of context to mean that he’s saying the officers who rushed in made the wrong decisions based on what they knew at the time. IMPORTANT NOTES Active shooter response training has evolved over the years since Columbine, and it continues to evolve as police conduct After Action Reviews of each incident. With that being said, an active shooter is only an “active shooter” when they are actively shooting or on the move. Once the shooting stops and a suspect is contained, it is protocol to slow everything down and treat the situation as a barricaded gunman, and in this case, a barricaded gunman with hostages. The next step is to bring in/initiate negotiations. Uvalde PD did this. The shooter was classified as an active shooter briefly when officers entered the school. He shot through a concrete wall and hit 2 officers. Officers did not return fire because the gunman was in a classroom with kids, and they couldn’t see him to identify a clear shot. The risk of hitting a kid was too great, and they were only equipped with handguns at the time. As police were pulling the 2 injured officers to safety, the shooting stopped and there wasn’t a single shot for another 40 minutes. Police began evacuating over 100 kids and faculty to safety while the gunman was contained. They were also notifying BORTAC to respond with special equipment, and searching the school for a master key. CONCLUSION It is understandable to question how this happened, how he entered the school, and what took so long to neutralize him; however, the officers who responded did what they could with the information that they had at the time and the resources they had available to them. A better picture of why the department didn’t have these tools readily available, why there wasn’t a better determined method of full access to the building, etc. needs to be determined, but it is fundamentally wrong to be placing all of this blame on the officers who ran into the school. 4 of them had kids of their own inside. These claims are what is already out there being spread, and the alternate opinions are based on listening to every 911 call, reading transcripts, comparing timelines, listening to press conferences, gathering consistent info from articles, talking to local officers and parents via PM, and knowing the standard protocols and incident command logistical obstacles during extremely fluid events. It is easy for people to Monday morning quarterback a situation such as this. And in many cases, those doing the Monday morning quarterbacking have zero law enforcement experience. In a situation such as this, it is important to let the investigation play itself out, and if the police did in fact act improperly, then deal with it. That unfortunately won’t bring back the 21 innocent lives lost in Uvalde, but hopefully can serve as a lesson for other police officers in dealing with such a situation.

They are more than translated. They are now resurrected beings ("twinkled"). So, they cannot die. In Doctrines of Salvation, JFS says that they were translated so they could bestow the keys upon Peter, James, & John prior to the Resurrection. Once they had done so, their Terrestial mission was complete they only had to wait for Christ's resurrection to be twinkled into exalted beings. Thia happened to all who were translated prior to Christ. It was as resurrected beings that Elijah, Elias, and Moses returned at the dedication of the Kirtland Temple. They cannot die.

The older I get, the more our social rituals and drama surrounding weddings just seem ridiculous. In the hypothetical described in the OP, I’d say: As long as the (temple) wedding actually happens, the time/place/manner is of minimal importance to me. I’d be more worried about how the pressures described would affect the marriage itself.