Leaderboard

The whole point to modern prophets is that they offer us the voice of the Lord as attenuated to our own particular time and place. It is surely not an eternal principle that people must subordinate God’s instructions to civil authority in every instance. If it were then Daniel would never have gone into the lion’s den, Shadrach & Co would never have gone into the furnace, Judaism would have ended with Esther, Nephi would never have gotten the brass plates, Abinadi would never have stood before Noah, Alma would never have baptized in the wilderness, Alma the Younger would have never entered Ammonihah, Lamoni would have gone up to the land of Nephi with his father, Moroni would never have threatened the chief judge and then retaken Zarahemla from the victorious kingmen, Nephi son of Helaman would have never preached against the corrupt judges, and Samuel the Lamanite would have never stood upon the wall. And of course, Christ would have never gone to the cross; Peter would never have stood before the chief priests at Jerusalem or ultimately crucified on Vatican Hill, Paul would have never preached to Agrippa, and thousands of early Christians would have renounced their faith instead of going to their deaths in the arena and elsewhere. D&C 58 and 98 were an expedient given at particular points in time to particular groups in particular circumstances. The degree to which they apply today is best ascertained by looking at President Nelson’s and the Q15’s most current statements on the topic, which seem to indicate that for the time being—in general—God still expects us to submit ourselves to civil authority.

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

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

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

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

This attempt to justify violence and the destruction of property is not persuasive. The fact that any group of humans contains elements that can be whipped into a fervor and pointed at a target, does not mean that the LA riots were some sort of moral thing. Liberal guilt over privilege, demonizing the word and forming it into a weapon to be used against those who have it, is also not persuasive. My people were once forced out of their homes at gunpoint and made to trek across the plains in a winter that killed 1 out of every 12 refugees. My wife's ancestry includes a slave (the little Indian girl bought by a family of Saints who had settled in Utah), and slaveowners (the members of the various Ute tribes who raided each other for children to sell to the Saints). Closer to the present, my grandfather lost everything in the great depression, and left my young teen dad as the oldest male to care for a family while he rode the rails looking for work. My Dad & his mom and siblings moved a lot trying to find food - Utah, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico - literally starving at times - only potatoes for days on end at times - only one pair of clothes. And I was once forced at knifepoint to recant my religion. I was once pushed against a set of lockers by a guy who showed me his knife and said "I cut mormons - are you a mormon?" Me, my dad, my grandpa: 3 generations of honest law-abiders, striving for a better future. They had to deal with those who tried to cut corners and break laws back then too. There have always been people who figure the laws shouldn't apply to them. People willing to do violence to get what they want. No, you don't get to use the word "privilege" against me, pal. The United States of America is one of, if not the greatest nations out there when we're measuring who can work their way into earned privilege. Again, you're as familiar with social media as I am - I suggest again that you go find the ever-growing numbers of legal immigrants who are supporting the deportation efforts, and go argue with them. I've said it before and I'll say it here again - you and yours haven't learned a single thing since T took the election with nationwide gains in almost every category. It's not that T and the cops won't stand for it, Americans won't stand for it. Your lawlessness and rioting will be put down, and every thrown brick turns into another 1000 Americans supporting more deportations. Your basic attitude of "I don't condone it but I won't shed any tears over it, and besides, it's useful for change" is widespread across the political left. And y'all seem hell-bent on losing the next decade's worth of elections over the issue. Go for it. Yeah, MLK was a heck of a guy. Guess what else he said: "Every summer we are going to have this kind of vigorous protest. My hope is that it will be nonviolent. I'm hoping we can avoid riots because riots are selfish and socially destructive." "I'm here to say tonight that if every negro in the United States turns against nonviolence I'm gonna stand up as a lone voice and say this is the wrong way!" "The basic idea that nonviolence is the most potent weapon available to the negro in his struggle for freedom and justice. I think for the negro to turn to violence would be both impractical and immoral." Again, once the fires start, once the protests turn into riots, once the rocks or bricks or water bottles are thrown - you lose. Especially after the riots of 2021 are recent enough in people's memories, and the results were basically failed cultural reform efforts like DEI and Kendi's stupid antiracism. So, the various -isms have had what, 150 years to work across the planet? There are -isms that have resulted in the worst atrocities, and there is capitalism. The phrase is "the least horrible choice". When paired with a representative republic and a constitution which mandates a limited government, separation of powers, and the notion of govt by consent, there have been zero worst atrocities. Holocaust? Nazis (aka the National Socialist German Workers' Party. The "Nationalsozialists".) The Armenian Genocide that killed 1.5 million? A coup that paired a dictatorship with ethnic nationalism. The Rwandan Genocide that killed around .8 million? Ethnic genocide carried out by a government that engaged in state control of the economy that favored the Hutus over the Tutsis. The Cambodian Genocide and it's almost 2 million dead? Communists seeking to transform Cambodia into a classless society based on their interpretation of Marxist-Leninist ideology. The Great Chinese Famine that killed somewhere between 15-45 million? A result of the Great Leap Forward. More Communists trying to transform China from an agrarian society into a socialist society through rapid industrialization and collectivization. The Soviet Gulags that killed between 1.5 and 2 million? The Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. The 1-2 million deaths in India starting in the late '40's might be your best chance lay stuff like this at the feet of a developed capitalist nation. Britain is maybe 40% to blame, initiating the partition and then granting everyone their freedom and bailing on the whole scene as all the factions that had been kept at bay descended on each other. Ghandi tried hard, and he wasn't the only person preaching nonviolence, but it wasn't in the cards in that place. But the US isn't 1940's India. It's not like anyone is howling for blood (except for the growing numbers of leftists supportive of executing CEOs and assassinating presidents and burning down the system in the name of fighting fascism and racism). But apart from them, it's not like the white christian businessmen or McD's employee are howling to snuff out immigrants. We get to be a nation of laws, governed by consent of the people, with an executive branch enforcing laws passed by the legislative branch, and the judicial branch either giving T the green light or a smack down, depending on the particulars. Porous borders are a threat to this nation. Illegal immigration chews up lives and creates misery in the people seeking a better life. Human trafficking sucks. Child sex slavery sucks. Bad actors using open borders to smuggle humans, drugs, weapons across it must stop. Tall walls, wide well-guarded gates, robust immigration policies, humanitarian efforts, and punishing offenders. All of that is just, moral, and good. Win or lose your next election as you see fit. I don't see defending temper tantrums and yelling about privilege as a path to it, but you do you.

Plural marriage was introduced somewhere around 1831 to 1834. The Edmunds Act was passed in 1882. The Church went through the court system for many years contesting the act with various arguments. In 1890 The Manifesto was published. So, initially, it wasn't illegal. When it became illegal, we tried to fight it through the legal system and the political process. When we realized all our options were exhausted, we agreed to comply. Ironically the LGBTQ movement has brought about conditions that one would be hard-pressed to make an argument that this law would pass Constitutional muster if brought before the Supreme Court -- especially with the vehemence that federal agents persecuted the Saints in the 1880s. While bigamy laws are on the books in all 50 states, most of the time they get a slap on the wrist and dissolve one or both marriages legally. But, of course, it is perfectly legal to have "an open marriage." And they don't prosecute adulterous relationships anymore. Yeah, that makes sense. To be perfectly willing to pledge support and fealty to many wives with a legally binding contract: That's illegal. To only have a legally binding contract with one woman but have free non-binding relationships with as many others as I want. That's legal.

Sure, celebrating pride month. Here's my pride flag.

9 But as it is written: “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him.” 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God, that we might know the things that are freely given to us by God. 13 These things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. -- I Corinthians 2 Carnal minded people know nothing concerning the mysteries or knowledge of spiritual things. As Alma wrote: "It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him . . . And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries . . ." (Alma 12: 9 & 11)

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

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

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

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

I don't know if this fully answers your question but perhaps we can infer some things from it. Brigham Young, "Light of the Spirit—Laws of Health—Joy in the Gospel, &c.," August 5, 1860, Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. (Liverpool: George Q. Cannon, 1861), 8:138 "No man ever preached a Gospel sermon, except by the gift and power of the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. Without this power, there is no light in the preaching. Brother Bywater remarked that he did not desire a man of God, when he arose to speak to the people, to say, "Thus saith the Lord God Almighty," or "Thus saith Jesus Christ." People who require this, or who constantly require written revelation, have not a correct conception of revelation and its Spirit. What do the present professing Christian world know about the words of the Lord that came to Jeremiah, Isaiah, and other ancient Prophets? They read and hear without understanding much; they have not a true conception of the truth or principle of what they are reading. Is this the case with the Latter-day Saints? It is more or less the case with those who are continually desiring to have "Thus saith the Lord," and more written revelations. Those who possess the Spirit of revelation know the voice of the Good Shepherd when they hear it, and a stranger they will not follow. They discern the difference between the spirit and power of the Gospel and the precepts of men. When they hear truth poured upon the people, in comparison like the cataract of Niagara, they do not want "Thus saith the Lord," for it carries with it its own evidence, and is revelation to the believer. They understand, and the fountain within them springs up to everlasting life; they are happy partakers of the peace of God through the administration of his servants, and of the truths the Lord dispenses; and they receive truth upon truth, light upon light, which cheers and comforts their hearts day by day. If you wish to understand the true principles of revelation, live for it: there is no other way of obtaining eternal life." These are BY's sentiments but I'm guessing other Church leaders simply followed suit until it became the norm to not state "thus sayeth the Lord." To me, he is saying that there is an expectation for the members of the Church to receive a direct confirmation from the Lord on prophetic teachings and so there is no need to constantly identify the source of revelation because the Source will reveal it's truthfulness to us directly. The Lord must have felt it was needed in the earliest days of the Church because many members were still largely inexperienced with how revelation worked both personal and authoritatively. That all changed with time. Now, as BY states, we don't need the Good Shepherd to preface everything he says with "I am your Shepherd," if we are His sheep we will automatically recognize His voice.

I'll decry his actions no matter which political bend he has.

Welcome, Moroni60! I can’t speak for any individual prophet; but looking to my own experience in giving priesthood blessings: there have been occasional, very rare instances where specific verbiage was given to me, but generally it was concepts or impressions that I was left to put into vocabulary as best I could. As we go back and look at the editorial history of the D&C and the way different revelations were edited, combined/separated, or revised even between the BoC versus the first edition D&C—I am increasingly persuaded that the fact that many of the revelations in the D&C are written in the Lord’s “voice” is less a reflection of the process the Lord used in each of those instances to communicate with the Prophet; and more frequently (not always, but very often) a stylistic choice made by Joseph Smith himself. (Mormon himself, I think, does the same thing in recording/reconstructing some of the great sermons, and perhaps visions, in the Book of Mormon; particularly in Mosiah and Alma.) The result can be something very powerful to read—if it’s not wrong. President Taylor’s 1886 revelation shows what can happen when the prophet gets it wrong. I have no doubt that he was given a true revelation with some general concepts that comforted him and led him to stay on a course that was right for the Church at that time. But I have less confidence that, when he finally put pen to paper, he was able to articulate what he’d experienced in a way that wasn’t influenced by his own experiences and hopes and sufferings. President Taylor himself seems to have shared my doubts about his own scribal process in that instance; to such an extent that he declined to present it to the Twelve for review—let alone to the Church as a whole for canonization. And I think since his day later prophets have, generally wisely, chosen to take a more modest approach.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet Now, why would Obama want to destroy Iran's centrifuges if they were "only" using it for nuclear energy? Hmmm?

The doctor was wrong on this one - what he prescribed is exactly the course of action one needs to follow in order to live forever.

Actually, I take that back. I will humbly accept a lecture on privilege from the vet who bears literal outward and inward scars gained during service to this country. Just not from the leftie activist. Tell you what: I wish you a happy flag day, or a happy no kings day. Pick the one you'd like to receive.

In stunning news, Colorado's Dem governor and Dem Denver mayor took care of business. ~100 protestors at capitol hill yesterday, and it all went well until it didn't. Protests are good, riots are not. Clashes started, rocks and bottles and stuff started flying. The protest became a riot. The cops read the riot act, then dispersed the riot. Arrested maybe a dozen or two rioters. So, kudos to the liberal blue democrats in charge of Denver, because they did good. And by "do good", I mean they understand how important law and order is to the people who will vote for them in the next elections. It's nice when a representative government understands the will of the people.

It also varies from person to person as to why they choose to grow facial hair. In my case, when I was in junior high there were two other students who had similar appearances to me, such that teachers often confused us if we were in the same class. When I got to high school I discovered that the student handbook allowed us to have mustaches, and so I let mine grow out, much to the chagrin of my mom, who did everything possible to try and get me to shave it off. Once it was grown out, the three of us were never again confused for one another. I've since allowed the mustache to grow into a full Van Dyke - style number, and I've also begun sporting mutton chops as with my high blood pressure there are certain parts of my face to where if I tag myself while shaving it takes a prolonged period for the bleeding to stop. I use an electric razor to keep my facial hair trimmed, and a disposable to remove what hair I don't want as part of my style.

If you are incapable of seeing the difference between these two pictures you should either a. Educate yourself or b. Admit you are nothing less than partisan

I find rioting and destroying property appalling. First off, you have no right to damage things that are not yours, unless you are given permission to do so. Second, these businesses and homes are in your own hometown! Do you not realize that they won’t rebuild there and you’ve just damaged your own property value?!? These are your neighbors as well. It’s repulsive.

The military being deployed seems a bit extreme. If Joe Biden did this the right would be losing their minds in rage, though they won’t admit it now.

I found this, which helps me out with my concern. And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them. And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law. And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil. (D&C 98:4–7; italics added) Found this at https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/polygamy-denials/.

I have no idea, but here are some good questions to ask: 1. When the Lord said "laws of the land", did he mean US laws, the constitution, or all laws from all jurisdictions that one happens to be in? (The Lord has spoken in favor of the US Constitution explicitly, but I don't recall mention of any other laws... Just a thing to consider.) 2. Assuming those Illinois laws existed, did the saints know that? Were they within its jurisdiction? Were the laws worded such that a marriage performed elsewhere (and possibly only performed in the laws of the Church, not by the laws of any civil jurisdiction) was made illegal on arrival of the parties thereto, or was it only forbidding performance of such marriages? (The answers to these questions dictate whether they violated anti-bigamy laws or adultery laws, for example.) There are probably other good questions to ask, but I can't say I've ever thought about this before this moment.

Thank you for this, I found its clarity helpful. So the Church still believes creeds are abominations... When I was investigating the church in the '90s I asked one of the guys why there were no crosses in the meetinghouses. He seemed a little discomfitted and explained basically as you mentioned 'We find the cross a symbol of death'. He needn't have been that uncomfortable, because it was a basic fact of history, and besides, as i remembered later, and as Peter O'toole as a Roman, put it in 'Masada', "Give us our due, we know how to kill..." I liked then, and continue to now, the use of the spire in meetinghouses -minus- the cross, and also regard fondly as iconic(pardon the word) that statue of Moroni on the Salt Lake City temple. There's just something about it.

Drove behind a car yesterday with a bumper sticker that read, "You keep believing. I'll keep evolving." The thing is, individuals do not evolve. Species evolve. Bloodlines evolve. Groups evolve. Individual organisms simply exist. They may participate in the process of evolution (assuming they procreate), but they do not evolve. So the guy clearly doesn't even understand what organic evolution is. Meanwhile, his entire point is apparently that those idiot religious folks will just stew in their own ignorance while he, the clear-minded evolutionary atheist, will climb to greater heights. Well, we have already established that the evolutionary atheist doesn't know what he's talking about, so he won't be finding any new peaks of enlightenment with that contemptuous, dismissive attitude. But the religious believer might indeed. And if the believer does find such enlightenment, it will be of a sort invisible to the atheist, since the atheist rejects the entire foundation on which the religious person builds. Epic self-ownage. Well done, Mister Enlightened Atheist.

This brings up another aspect of why AI will become more and more dangerous. People are using it to settle "moral" questions. It is being used to settle questions of right and wrong, truth vs error. Morality can never be reduced to a programmable variable. Right or wrong. What is a greater evil than another? What is "the greater good"? These are questions philosophers have struggled with fore millennia. Can we surmise to be able to program that into a soulless chunk of minerals that was merely the creation of human hands? That is idolatry.

According to the scripture canon, the events of Star Wars occurred in a galaxy far, far away. The Pleiades is one of the closest star clusters to us at only ~450 ly away, in our own spiral arm of the Milky Way. Unless of course, we want to argue that isles of the sea colonized by the people of Hagoth at the end of Alma really refers to island universes floating in the heavenly expanse. Now there's an interesting suggestion. That not only did Book of Mormon people figure out interstellar travel, but they also figured out intergalactic travel. My mind is so blown, that I may not be good for anything else the rest of the day.

I just got out of three meetings that overlapped. One was to go over our file management system which is so messed up, you'd have to get an associate's degree exclusively devoted to the study of this architecture to understand it. One was to say hi to all the new people on the staff throughout the country. (Like we're even going to remember the name of a staff member in California.) One was to go over the timesheet entry process... which I've been using effectively for over a year. Why they thought I needed to be part of the meeting is beyond me. So, while all three were playing in the background at my desk, I was actually getting work done. Yey! Meetings!!! Did I mention I'm a government contractor?

What an interesting thread. I started learning about AI over 50 years ago. Of course, initially, the AI was rather primitive – at least by today standards. I have watched changes I never thought possible and over the last 5 years things have taken a quantum leap. I was recently talking to my son that is a software engineer learning to apply AI in our current software environment. For about 10 years he has worked for the same company, pushing previously developed software to expand capabilities. One particular module he has worked with for his full 10 years making changes. I know well this kind of problem. In my day we called this spaghetti code. Working with spaghetti code is one of software engineering’s greatest problems. More than once in my past – I gave up and went through the very time-consuming effort to rewrite an entire module of spaghetti code. Using a new AI algorithm purchased by my son’s company – he had the AI algorithm analyze the code and rewrite it one night as he left work. By the next morning it was complete. He added the new fetchers and had the AI algorithm reanalyze his work. It made a simple change and for months the new module had performed exceptionally well – much better than expected. The ramifications of this is staggering and far reaching. Windows software is a nightmare. Every software engineer knows this. We all know that it was built on top of a very old open source “basic” software. There are parts of windows that no one understands or dares to delete. It is one of the reasons that your computer takes so long to perform simple tasks. Currently any cleaver software engineer could decompile their Windows code then have AI analyze and rewrite the code and have a version of windows that they could forever maintain for themselves – or even market to their friends and family. Rewriting their internet connection in such a manner that could make it impossible to hack into their system without knowing the specific locks and inceptions applied. All this is currently in reach. I have a sister-in-law that works with a company that specializes in medical imaging. Already AI is greatly affecting their operations. AI can read the images and see things no live expert can see. It is possible to diagnose problems long before what could be done without AI. Lives could be saved and the cost of medical care greatly reduced. I have a nephew that is a pharmacist. The greatest problem in prescribing drugs is that combinations of drugs will interfere with each other and increase the probability of problem side effects. My nephew tells me that already AI is predicting better results of interfering drugs than even testing is able to reveal because of all the possibilitiesand probabilities. I rely on high blood pressure medication and my nephew tells me that most cold and flu medication will interfere with my blood pressure medications. I can envision the day that I can supply AI with my prescriptions and other medical information and discover very quickly what over the counter stuff would be best specifically for me and whatever is ailing me at the time. As I read the scriptures, specifically concerning the last days – changes are inevitable. Contrary to what it seems to me many are saying – we are outclassed trying to teach our children how to handle the changes. We can protect them for a while but eventually they must learn for themselves how to address their spiritual gifts. Since their spiritual gifts will often be different than our own – we cannot teach them all they need to know. They must learn for themselves – as each of us have done – how to listen and identify the truth through the spirit. If some of you face similar challenges as I do – you will quickly realize that how we as an individual, discerns the spirit is how everybody else must learn for themselves. Our prophet has said on more than one occasion that we all must learn to rely on our own testimony through how the spirit communicates to us. The Traveler

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

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

What people forget is that Trump came up in the world of business at a time when bombast, aggression, and persistence were considered to be features rather than bugs. As part of it, there was a bit of a ritual you could sometimes observe in which people would come to the bargaining table, deliberately throw out ostentatious demands, and then "allow" themselves to be negotiated down to what they had actually wanted to achieve in the first place. This allowed both sides to claim victory by getting what they wanted *and* praise themselves for how awesome they were that they talked the other guy down the way they did. Something, perhaps the assassination attempts, led to Trump reverting back to this mindset. View what he's saying and doing through the lens of this business environment, apply a bit of game theory, and what he's doing makes a *lot* more sense, even in a rather screwball fashion.

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

Assuming the worst about him (which is an unstable foundation for anyone to use), the keys of the kingdom were still intact and exercised by the First Presidency and Twelve. The covenants were still in place and active in the saints' lives. It's not a matter of being the best the Lord has to work with at the time, it is a matter of whom the Lord chooses to work through at the time for His own purposes. Should your line of thinking extend to Church leaders and officers (typically local units) committing crimes, the same thing holds true. The Lord atoned for all our sins and if He did not, we would not have the agency to commit them.

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

And just to keep harping on the left for the horrible moral cancer thriving in their midst, have twenty-two thousand likes for the notion that the random target of a random shooting was a terrorist because he lived in Israel: Oh wait - it's up to twenty-five thousand likes now. Careful reading the comments in that link though. It's an interesting mix of reasonable takes, hateful takes, and some of the worst antisemitic horribleness you can find on planet earth. Like, stuff you saw in 1930's nazi propaganda sort of horribleness.

Hear hear. Quite a lot of sentiment gets thrown round to suggest that if somebody isn't perfectly serving in their calling then they are useless. Always makes me uncomfortable, and it's an unrighteous, toxic attitude. We've a new Young Womans president being called and before she has even been set apart I've heard comments suggesting that this is "the end" of our youth.

Psychoanalyzing historical figures through historical records gets tricky fast. It's easy to be an armchair shrink, but it's even easier to judge unrighteously by filling in any missing context with our modern cultural contexts and understandings. Brigham and all historical figures faced many influences from their culture and society, and looking only at their diaries usually ignores the bigger picture of their experiences and decisions. Another way to put it: To us fat lazy 21st century 1st world elites, 1800's frontier Americans all look like crazy savages. We have lost all clues of how much effort those people had to put into just surviving the winter, much less the threats of extinction from other human sources. Here's a fun little slice of how things were back then: My wife is a descendant of the Native American slave trade. When the Mormons hit the valley, the various Ute tribes saw increased opportunities for trade. And raiding other villages for captive women and children became a new booming industry, because the good hearted LDS folks would buy slaves from them, especially if the slave traders mistreated their captives in front of the Mormons or threatened to kill them if they weren't sold. I wonder how accurate we can be with our attempts to psychoanalyze the chiefs of the various Sanpete and Timpanogos and other Ute tribes for thinking such things were a perfectly normal way to conduct a trading relationship with the newcomers. Yep. Even when I download the large filesize copy and drill down to max magnification, it's still nigh impossible to read. @jdf135, unless I miss my guess, you're going off of someone's text here. Care to post it? If it's an anti source, don't post the link to the source, but we can't really respond to your claims until we see upon what they are based.

I'm glad to hear it. When this news is covered on tiktok and x, the anonymous comments from folks identifying as the progressive left are about 90/10 in support of dude and his action. It's a universal phenomenon that people talk crap anonymously, and half of the responses are probably bots, but it's still rather chilling to see firsthand. That 10% is nice to see though. Lots of "I'm all in on Gaza and f*** israel but what dude did was wrong".

Is anyone else noticing that the search function no longer works? Every search I've done for a few weeks gives me nothing. I thought it was just at work due to some internet filters. I thought it was strange that I could access the site, but not the search engine. Now I just tried it at home. And I get nothing.

With the passing of the Pope and the election of a new Pope, I have been pondering some of the similarities we LDS have with our Catholic cousins. We have a Prophet that guides us, and the Catholics have a Pope. But these are men and regardless of how we may revere them – it is possible that they make mistakes. Our Protestant cousins do not believe in a Pope or Prophet. They believe that scripture is the infallible word of G-d. The term “Sola Scriptura” which is laten for scripture alone is their ultimate source of revelation. We also believe scripture to be the word of G-d but with a caveat that scripture needs to be interpreted correctly. One of the more unique principles of LDS theology is the importance of personal revelation. I should not have to remind anyone here that many falling into apostasy have done so thinking they have received for themselves a more sure revelation about various things. So, it would seem that there is a question – What is to be more relied upon? Prophets? Scripture? Personal Revelation? What is the ultimate source of Revelation? As I meditated on this problem a thought came to me. What does Scripture say? And then what do the Prophets say? And again, what has the spirit revealed? In essence, I believe that we LDS have what I would call a trifecta of ultimate source for revelation. The best way to put this is – In the mouth of two or three witnesses will G-d establish the truth of his word. We are taught by many witnesses to read and study the scriptures, listen to our prophets and to ask in sincere prayer what is true. This is our ultimate source of truth and light – a minimum trifecta of ultimate means to be sure of revelation. If scripture testifies, plus our prophets testifies and also the spirit testifies to us in personal revelation then we can be sure that we have connected and have the ultimate source of revelation. And yet there is more? The Traveler

More data for you to throw into the mix. It has to do with the washing of feet. The ancient Jews considered the feet to be the filthiest part of the body (probably excluding elimination). The only other thing dirtier were the shoes that protected them. We can't remove our feet. But we can remove shoes. So, it was better to take one's shoes off and go through the house barefoot. When barefooted from a long trip, the washing of feet was done only by slaves or the lowest servants. So, Jesus' washing the apostles' feet was a sign of Him "descending below all things." And after one is baptized, washing of the feet as an ordinance make one "clean every whit." This was not a replacement for baptism. It was in addition to baptism. And even so, one had to be worthy. Even after Jesus washed Judas's feet, He said that "not all" are clean. It is obviously not a "saving ordinance" since we are not all "required" to participate. But it is a reminder that even if we have been baptized, we still need to take care of those parts of our lives that bring us the greatest spiritual stain. When Moses "came to the House of the Lord" (the mountain of the Lord's House) he needed to be clean every whit. This was part of the ordinance performed at the Burning Bush. So, he took of his shoes and his feet were washed. But I believe the Bush was also a means of cleansing with fire rather than water.

Remember it’s all volunteer. It’s not a job. People work 65 hours a week-we in the church should be grateful we can find people willing to work their callings at all. Before I was certified I used to volunteer to referee TKD sparring matches. I did so for free. I was absolutely willing to accept criticism, but if anyone tried to give me a “royal butt whipping” I’d take my tie off, leave and go find a beach.

I think there is a difference between the source, the means (trifecta), the receipt and the application of truth. My read of the scriptures (and my experience) is that the Son of God is the source of all truth for this world. He conveys it in many ways, from the sustenance of all existence and life on earth to the immortal parallels in eternity. The means of conveyance, which requires the involvement of the Holy Ghost, depends on how much and how well the existing organized entity can act or be acted upon. Elements act very little, life forms act somewhat, and people act very much. The "receipt" of truth is addressed in Elder Kearon's last General Conference talk. As we put forth a good faith effort in following Christ a disciples, we get better and better at it. A great part of receiving the truth is applying it to the glory of its Source. How well we receive and apply truth will determine how well the trifecta works. But the Lord has promised that He will bless even a particle of faith or even the desire to believe. The Holy Ghost has several roles of increasing conveyance: witnessing the truth of a matter, an intermediary of sorts in prayer (a form of quickening); serving as a constant companion to illuminate our choices; acting as the agent for purification and sanctification; confirming or validating the fulfillment of covenants in alignment with with Christ's atonement (Holy Spirit of Promise).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2024/10/47eyring?lang=eng The important / eternal / core Doctrine of Jesus Christ is simple. Core doctrine is what our testimonies should be built upon. Core doctrine is unmistakable. It is reinforced repeatedly in scripture, modern revelation, and personal revelation. Esoteric ‘doctrine’ is not important, rarely alluded to, confusing, and should never be one’s foundation of testimony.

Raising your hand and sustaining fallible humans can be challenging sometimes. It helps if you understand that sustaining people in their calling occasionally means not putting up with their bullcrap if that's what they're shoveling. I learned this lesson once as an executive secretary in a bishopric meeting. The stake representative was chewing out the bishop for not having all his ducks in a row regarding some priesthood advancements. The bishop said something to his clerk, who left the room. Bishop then took out his copy of the handbook and began reading verbatim the section on ward and stake duties and procedures when it came to such things. After he had read the section, the clerk had returned with several records, and the bishop proceeded to assign dates to every single thing the ward was supposed to do. Then he turned to the stake responsibilities and read them off, one at a time, saying things like "the stake has had bro Smith's teacher ordination paperwork since [date]. Have you done step 3 and completed the paperwork?" "the stake was informed about their need to interview bro Jones for advancement to elder on [date]. Has the stake contacted bro Jones to set up that meeting?" The questions went on and on. The stake was found lacking on every single item. After the bishop was done, he asked "ok. So, is there anything the stake is waiting for on our end? If not, I think we can move to the next topic." I've never seen such a royal butt-whipping as I saw the bishop give our stake rep that day. There was love in the air, and there was also absolutely no mistake about who had dropped the ball. I mean, you're not bishop, but if you're filling your calling, you can speak with the same authority. You can say what you will and will not be doing. You can point out how other people are not doing their jobs. And even though it's a skill that's hard to master, you can do such things in love.