Leaderboard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the handbook:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the other hand, if your 70-year-old mother had voluntarily donated her basement as a place for goons to keep their Jewish sex slave . . . We have a strong western tradition of at least giving lip service to the distinction between civilian and military; and the notion that a populace is often not accountable for the acts of its government. But when you see the public opinion polls about the number of Palestinians (and Palestinian supporters in Europe and the USA) who support the 10/7 attacks . . . I don’t know. It makes me reconsider the OT conquest narratives. Could it be that sometimes, an entire culture is simply beyond rehabilitation/reconciliation; and for the sake of self defense, all that’s left to do is to give them the most humane death your resources permit?

Sounds like Eli Herring. https://www.deseret.com/2015/4/29/20563855/20-years-later-blessed-herring-believes-he-made-right-decision-not-to-play-in-nfl/ From the above interview you can see he had no regrets. I was on the BYU track and field team with him back in the early ‘90s. He was a heck of a good shot putter too. And his eating prowess was awe-inspiring. Doing the right thing always pays off.

I do not believe this. Especially for men who work a professional job, the virtue of living within one's means is almost universally available.

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

Happiness is not so simple though. The principle of losing our life to find our life, sacrifice bringing blessing, and that joy comes from faith, righteousness, humility, service, obedience, and effort, are not intuitive to the human (natural man) condition. People are (in their fallen "natural man" way) seeking self-fulfillment, money, pleasure, and ease, laughter, fun, and a painless existence. The gospel does not intuitively provide these things (though it does in a round about way). The core principles of Christ's gospel amount to denying oneself and taking up one's cross to follow the Savior. These principles are obvious to those who've engaged in them, even in practical matters of life (such as working out and eating right to be healthy, being careful with money and working hard to be wealthy, etc., etc.). But the world, more and more, pushes the ideas of "deserve" and "self" and "victim" and "follow your passion" and all the Disney (a.k.a. Satan) garbage like that, which all feels, to the natural man, like how we should find/seek happiness. The problem is that it doesn't work. So I'm not disagreeing with you. An environment where people left happy is, you're correct, the key. But what that environment looks like is sacrifice, humility, service, obedience, a broken heart and a contrite spirit, and so forth. And that's a tough pill to swallow, even though it's the actual medicine we all need.

For some reason I got into the idea of western wear lately. Got myself some overly long jeans to wear with my boots (I already had a few pair of cowboy boots...but it was more for...I dunno... well, not full on western...), a few western shirts, and a couple of cowboy hats. But here's the thing. Cowboy hats are expensive! Real ones, at least. The "cheap" one I got was on sale for $120 (normally $150), and the nicer one I got I dropped $250 on (also on sale, normally $350). And they're both lower quality hats, in the relative scheme of things. A high-end hat can run up to $3000!! Yowsa! But then, as I tend to do, I went even crazier on the thought, and decided I'd learn to make my own hat!! You see... a 100% beaver felt (which is the high end hat side of things), one can pick up for $200 or so. That's not really why I wanted to make hats. But... it's nice to know that if I get good at it, I could theoretically create a hat that would cost $1000+ for under $250. Shrug. Anyhow... so I got myself a hat block off Etsy ($125), and a hat "blank" or "capeline" in wool (the cheapest material) for about $35, and.... here's what I have so far: Here's the block: The blocking of the felt: Post blocking: And completed hatband (which I tooled myself): I sanded the hat too (a process that's meant to be a part of the process per my learning efforts), but that's made it all splotchy. Don't know if I've ruined it or not. Gotta try a few things to see. Next I have to sew in a sweatband, then shape the thing into a cowboy hat shape of some sort. Lest one thinks I'm only into the cowboy hat thing, I can use the same block to make Indiana Jones style fedoras! So... you know.

Because the people you are interacting with have learned some lessons from History. The fruit of the tree of your third point is one that is very corrupt, bitter, and evil. And those that tend to such trees and partake of that fruit often become what they eat... corrupt, bitter, and evil. We do not know how far along you are in consumption of this evil fruit, but we are concerned, because you have started. Your third point historically leads to things like genocide, holocausts, enslavement, etc. Most people have a profoundly negative response to others that try to justify such evil, and you have started on such a path even if you didn't really mean to

This, a hundred times over! And this! Actually, the Lord will bring this. But guess what. Even He and those living with Him in their midst won't be able to maintain it (and boy that ought to tell you something). By the end of the Millennium, it will collapse. The last of those destined to this planet will battle the same battle we've been fighting since we got here, and then we'll go off, each to live in the separate sphere s/he has chosen, for eternity. Amen!

Bible Dictionary Entry on Job. In D&C 121:10, is the Lord referencing a fictional story, or someone from history? Heaven knows. I suspect there was a Job and the story is pretty accurate, while also being designed to convey important truths (which would include both eliminating elements and emphasizing others). IMO, the goal of the storytellers through history would have been to make its lessons as memorable as possible, by tweaking the telling in a way that made it easy to retell verbally, until eventually we became more obsessed with accuracy and maintaining a written record. Better than asking about its historicity is asking what more can we learn from it - I think there's a depth of learning possible there and we barely begin to touch on it in Sunday School.

The other day I had a brief encounter with a guy and his four year old son. In that brief encounter I witnessed how absolutely terrible of a parent he must be in how he treated his son. I knew it wasn't a unique experience because it didn't faze the child at all. Afterwards I got to thinking how likely it was that that child would grow up to be just like his father and how his father likely grew up in a similar situation. And I wondered about how could this life be a fair test for them. It's true they still have their agency but so much of who we are is shaped by people and external forces that we have zero control over. The only answer I could come up with is twofold. First that we only see an extremely small snippet of a person's existence and second how infinite and eternal the atonement of Jesus Christ truly is. Somehow everything will turn out more than fair and we will all acknowledge that God is perfectly just and merciful. I know that explanation doesn't tie everything up in a nice bow but if it did faith would not be as important as it is. There is a reason why Joseph Smith taught one of the three things necessary to have faith in God is "A correct idea of his character, perfections and attributes." So much rides on that knowledge.

I would point out that it's easy to read the book of Abraham's account of Ham and Egyptus as stating that those of African (Egyptian) heritage with dark skins are descendants of Cain through Ham, son of Noah and a wife of Cain's lineage. In fact, it's difficult to read that account in context and not arrive at that conclusion, though I admit it is not openly spelled out in so many words. Since I don't understand how God counts lineage, I do not know the answers here—though I would point out that, genetically speaking, the idea that the Priesthood cannot be conferred upon anyone who has "one drop of the blood of Cain" in his veins likely disqualifies every human being, given the nature of how descendancy works. Whatever is going on, our contemporary way of viewing things is clearly insufficient to yield a good explanation. Having said that, I reject out of hand the all-too-easy and IMO cowardly and dishonorable notion that we are to just claim the former prophets were "racist", and then go about signalling our virtue by saying that the "Priesthood ban" was all a mistake and things are just dandy now among us more righteous people. I may not understand how things work or why things are as they are, but I will stand with the prophets and against the disloyal and cowardly who would speak evil of them in order to gain status in the eyes of the world and the worldly.

You might be underestimating how utterly bad the people are that God destroys. And even then He does it for their own good. Wrath and firey indignation are helpful at times in trying to scare people straight, but it's always love that motivated God. Having said that, there is such a thing as righteous fear that can be healthy but it's more a fear of letting God down than Him destroying us.

Yep. And I, for one, am well pleased with the potential here. I don't actually disagree that the Tariffs will cause economic harm. They will. I believe the other, more important economic things that Trump is likely to enact will more than offset that. Drilling and de-regulating will make a lot more difference to the economic strength than the cost of goods from China. And it, honestly, isn't a "we'll see" issue to me. It's a long term security issue. It's worth the pain. It's no different than the philosophy on the left that getting rid of oil and gas systems, while painful, is good for us long term. (A point with which I don't fully disagree.) Some pain is worth it. Some things are worth higher costs. Some things are worth dying for. China is out of control. They have to be reigned in. Even at the cost of goods rising. Tariffs do cause some pain to the US. They cause more pain to the countries being tariffed. And they're a whole heck of a lot better way to curb other country's bad behavior than bombing them or the like. Or, alternatively, as the Dems seemed to choose, letting them just run amok. Maybe there are other, better ways. But the pre-pandemic economy under Trump before belies your point a bit. Sure, there were some pains because of the Tariffs. But the economy was great. The same is true of what I hope Musk does to the government agencies under Trump. Will it be painful for the economy and other things if the government's alphabet agencies are gutted? Yes. But, in my opinion, nothing would be better for the country in the long term.

I think that some of the difficulties caused by the question of evil stems from the idea that killing is wrong. And assuredly, killing is wrong, but I think it might not be a compelling example to illustrate the problem of evil. Time and time again we see the example of large-scale killings such as Rwanda or the Holocaust, being put forward as some kind of ethical/moral problem that doesn’t fit in with our knowledge/beliefs in other things. I don’t believe this is a helpful or accurate way to view death. Death is a necessary part of the Plan of Salvation, and that being the case, I’m not sure how much meaning or significance should be attached to the manner and timing of any particular death. There is a tendency to view death as an evil, or bad, or undesirable thing rather than a necessary step towards a positive outcome. Death is simply a transition, not an end, and the condition that death transitions us to is in so many ways better than the conditions it takes us from. Why should we think as evil an event that takes us to a better place? I think our perspective on the problem of evil could be changed if we viewed death as a necessary step rather than an evil. We know that death is not the end of life, it is simply the continuation of life in a different “place” and form. Sure, in many cases, death seperates us from our loved ones, but it also reunites us with a greater number of loved ones who have preceded us. Death limits our abilities to provide for the temporal needs of our loved ones, but it gives us increased opportunities to administer more and better to the eternal needs of a greater number of souls who died without the gospel. So, in short, I don’t see killing, whether done on a single scale or a wholesale scale, as a persuasive example of the problem of evil. And given our inability to make reliable judgements about the fairness/evil/justice of God and His plan based on the minutely short second act of a three act drama, I’m not even sure that there is a problem of evil or if anything useful can be said about it. I think the appearance of a problem may arise from a tendency to evaluate the goodness or badness of an action from our limited perspective of the here and now, with insufficient regard for the eternal consequences of an action, and this limited perspective makes it difficult to both see the problem clearly, and come up with reliable answers. I think the appearance of a problem arises from our tendency to judge certain acts as evil when in fact we are in no position to make such judgements, as our position, located in mortality, distorts our judgement.

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

Liars, all of them. I'm getting to hate politicians, more specifically the Democrat kind. This is not good for my spiritual welfare. I think I might need to step away.

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

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