Leaderboard

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.

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.

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".

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

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.

From the NET Bible app: ”The removal of sandals was, and still is in the East, a sign of humility and reference in the presence of the Holy One. It was a way of excluding the dust and dirt of the world. But it also took away the personal comfort and convenience and brought the person more closely in contact with the earth. “

Elder Rasband after quoting Exodus 3:5 "Putting off our shoes at the door of the temple is letting go of worldly desires or pleasures that distract us from spiritual growth, setting aside those things which sidetrack our precious mortality, rising above contentious behavior, and seeking time to be holy." Oct 2020 GC I think shoes are specified because they so easily get dirty with the filth of this world but it's representative of putting off this world entirely (changing into white clothing) and like you said, connecting with the divine.

Because I have chosen a profession in the category of engineering and science, I have delt a lot with atheists and agnostics. Strange as it may seem – I have often found it easier to deal with advances in the sciences with atheists and agnostics than those of the religious stripe. Perhaps the most outstanding examples of such principles are in the creation or origins of our universe and the principles of evolution of intelligent life. However, there is another principle that I believe is central to religious thought that is even more of a profound conundrum. I believe this principle is tied directly to a profound piece of advice given by our current living prophet – to think Celestial. Here is the conundrum as I see it. As a religious person draws closer to G-d through faith, belief and worship – it seems that in most religious cases – the less they are expected to contribute towards divine society and behaving like G-d. Keeping in mind that the best example of G-d that we have is Jesus Christ. There is a notion that if we believe in Christ – it does not matter that much what we say or do. We are saved – not by any effort of ourselves but only if we believe in Christ. It seems to me that such thinking is counter productive to the principle that the closer to G-d a person becomes through faith, belief and worship – the more like G-d that their thinking and behaviors ought to become. In the vernacular of LDS theology – this means thinking, believing in and behaving Celestial. Many have the notion that because they belong to the correct “religion” G-d will forgive them more that an non believer or someone of a different religious sect that makes greater effort to be kind and loving (G-d like) towards others. (This is very much at the core of the concept of being saved by grace or works.) In short – to whom much (of light and truth) is given much is expected. That those that are associated with the correct doctrines of religion – should not more be expected – especially at that great and final judgement day? The more light and truth we have the better we better (Celestial) we ought to be thinking. The Traveler

I have a story for you. A man was hiking in the mountains, he was invigorated with the majestic views over the steep mountain cliffs. He felt like he was in the presence of God himself. He became fixated and mesmerized with a hiker in the distance. who was outfitted with the newest and best tech equipment, he was attired so smartly too, he even looked flashy as he hiked the steep mountain trail. As the man was daydreaming of himself equipped like the… he suddenly slipped on the trail and fell off the cliff. Luckily on his way down, he managed to grab onto a branch sticking out of the rock face . Dangling precariously, he shouted in distress, Help ! Is anyone up there? I need Help ! . A voice like the sound of great rushing waters, replied, I am here to save. Let go of thine anchor, I will catch thee. The man hesitated, as he looked down in fear and saw only the terrifying drop below, after a few moments and with a crack in his voice, he shouted (meekly), "Is anyone else up there?" That was [The Parable of the Cliffhanger]. It's a parable story about how a person can feel so close to God, but when he focuses on the things of the world, He can find himself in precarious or stressful circumstances. And of course when the person feels the unbearable pain of his choices or like there is no way out, He turns to God for help. God wants to help, and can often give us solutions to save us. But sometimes all we can see is fear or we just don't have faith that his solution is the best way. So he looks to the world for help, or anywhere other than God for a way out. Ai Says " Your parable, "The Parable of the Cliffhanger," carries a powerful message about faith, trust, and the choices we make in moments of crisis. It's a compelling metaphor for how we often seek worldly solutions instead of relying on divine guidance, even when help is offered." JimTheMM

As I've noted before, I've worked in the newspaper industry since 2009, and have had my own movie review & op-ed column since 2013. For about 15+ years now, our stake public affairs group has been virtually non-functional. I was called to be an assistant stake public affairs person due to my working for a local newspaper, but was never elevated to being the main stake public affairs person no matter how many times the position turned over. Finally I was told that my services were no longer needed, at which point stake largely forgot I even existed, let alone that I worked for a newspaper. During this time the stake presidency was actually a *stumbling block* to my efforts, in that one particular stake presidency demanded that I submit to them any op-ed or review I wrote that mentioned the church but would then dawdle on giving me feedback. In one incident, it took them three weeks to finally respond to a single column, leaving me a mere 72 hours to create a replacement; when I told them of the situation they had put me in through their delay, the stake president at the time tried to order me to produce a puff piece about an upcoming Choir event. More stake public affair reps have come and gone since, with each one doing very, very little to actually get it done. All the while I'm getting roasted for things not making it into the newspaper I work for despite the fact that I was never given anything to give to the newspaper. Either nobody would think to tell me about an event in enough time, or I would just be told "It's on the ward / stake Facebook page!" when those pages were privated as per official church instruction. Well... as of today's stake conference we have yet another stake public affairs representative. I met with him after conference, and he promised to keep in touch as he gets things fixed. For those of you whose stakes have stake public affairs representatives, how's that been going for you?

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.

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.

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.

Our tech person thought that doing a complete reindexing of the site would fix the problem. It didn't. He's still working on trying to figure out what is going on as well as continuing to do some updates.

For the record, I once had an English teacher who would routinely yell at us any time he saw a paper that contained too many instances of the words "this" or "it". Both were anathema in his book. Although I guess I can see his point. Who wants to spend an hour reading 20 versions of this: The War of 1812 is still talked about today. This is for obvious reasons. It's because it had such a big impact on the world, and this cannot be forgotten. Back in the day, I could take that line of text and turn it into a 3 page essay. My grades usually reflected it.

Don't you mean you'll see if it is a thing? (I'm pretty sure you'll find it is almost always a thing.) PS: Enjoy your trip!

Hi folks, I first saw the search issue about a month ago. @pam is working with our technical folks, but it's taking a lot of time. They'll implement a fix, then Pam tries to recreate the search index, which takes like 2 days. When that doesn't fix things, it's back to the technical team. Hang in there peeps.

Yes, I mentioned that in another thread. Not only is it broken, but it's so broken that even a site-specific google search can't find posts. I had to resort to going to the content of my old account, viewing "activity", filtering by posts, and then finding the page with the time-frame in question (I remembered the post in detail and wanted to link to it). A few times, there were messages at the top of the page about indexing, but they're not there now.

Really? I lived in Colorado at the time, about an hour away from where you are now. Most of us in rural CO had a pretty good idea. Well, they were wrong. It wasn't the right wanting to overthrow the government. It was Obama's rhetoric that he was going to tax (I use the term loosely) all our guns into oblivion. So, we had to stock up before they get too expensive. He said it. We believed him. Thankfully, he didn't really do much on that front. But do you blame us for believing him when he said it? We were told that his 2A agenda wouldn't affect any law-abiding citizen from owning a gun. Our response:"So, you're saying that if we like our guns, we can keep our guns? Why do I not believe you?" I was a gulcher. And I think you got it wrong. We were constantly talking about Obama. I don't really recall many of us talking about Bill and Hillary. Why? They were ancient history. No chance Hillary would get elected. (That was the sentiment). Indeed...Tesla, anyone?

As a comedian, her biggest “crime” was that it wasn’t funny. A good comedian can get political points across while being funny.

W was despised as much as Trump is, but our short memories struggle with that. Bush was too nice a guy to push back (metaphorically) while Trump is so thin skinned that he’ll punch back to everything. I think that’s a big reason why MAGA likes him. Trump fulfills their dark fantasies by being as a nasty as possible to those who disagree with him. It’s a little troubling, actually.

It is not uncommon for a person to wield a great deal of power while posing as a bumbling idiot. We see this in literature with various heroes like Zorro, Batman and the all-powerful Superman. A prime element of an evil character is often someone utilizing various methods of plausible deniability of their involvement. This is not uncommon at all currently as leaders of nations race into war blaming their actions on their enemy justifying those they intend to kill or allow openly to be killed. The Traveler

Got it, private citizens posting things is okay.

Is this Jacob Hansen's version, or some other? Maybe it doesn't matter, because I see the same kinds of questions no matter whose version of "aggregate across multiple prophets" model I encounter. In theory, I think it is a good idea. Questions that I think tend to muddy the waters: 1) How do we determine who is and is not a prophet? Within a given tradition, there is usually consensus, but that also usually leaves some claims to prophethood (canonized scripture) out. We LDS accept Biblical and Book of Mormon figures as prophets, but reject Muhammad's. We accept Brigham Young through Russel M. Nelson, while rejecting Joseph Smith III through Staci Cramm (presumptive). I think it is worth acknowledging that your choice of prophets to include and exclude will impact the conclusions you end up drawing. 2) Once you've decided who to include in your list of prophets, then you need to determine what they said. This gets particularly difficult the further back in history you go. Did Moses really say all those things that are attributed to him? What about the letters of Paul? Even as recently as Joseph Smith, we end up going round in circles trying to determine what Joseph Smith said versus what his contemporaries claim he said. A lot of the time when I see someone like Hansen promoting this model, there seems to be an underlying assumption that we can accurately recall across years and generations and millenia what prophets taught. 3) Then there is the ever present question of interpretation, which, like the previous point, becomes increasingly difficult across time and culture and language. I think a "collective prophetic witness" type of model can be useful in getting at truth, but only if we are also willing to recognize where it will struggle.

How do you see that working with continuing revelation? Joseph Smith brought forth baptisms for the dead and promised “things which never have been revealed from the foundation of the world”. And in a moment of desperation he was also promised knowledge “that has not been revealed since the world was until now”. Joseph Smith also changed the universal understanding of the heaven/hell dichotomy to degrees of glory. A number of saints report they were ready to jump ship over that for the reasons you describe above. You could argue nuance, but that won’t address what Wilford Woodruff did. Previous prophets established that you wanted to be sealed to apostles so you have an unbroken chain to an exalted family. Wilford said your own parents are good enough for such an honor. You could argue that it was merely a practice or policy, but what about what Joseph F. Smith did? Peter taught that Jesus taught the disobedient in the days of Noah. Joseph F. says that’s incorrect, Jesus sent ministers instead.

It's become a punchline, even among women, how feminists will declare that men are the cause of all of society's ills, demand that men be forcibly segregated away from women so that women can be "protected", and then get upset because men are no longer participating in society. As I've mentioned before, this is a big part of why a lot of dudes would rather plunk down $30 for an anime girl statue if they want companionship than try their local dating scene.

Thanks for this thread. It stirred a childhood memory. As winter ended the cousins would head to grandma’s and get her garden ready for planting. When we finished tilling the soil we could slip off our shoes and walk through the garden. Bare feet sank into the soft soil. Not particularly relevant but I thank you for bringing it up.

Not consciously no... More likely the Evolution of expected Extrovert and Introvert interactions, would be my guess. 2 Extroverts are passing in a hallway. They have nothing to say, but they are Extroverts, so they say Hi and get a slight charge. 2 Introverts are passing in a hallway. They have nothing to say. They are Introverts, so they say nothing and avoid the cost. 1 of each are passing in a hallway. They have nothing to say. Extrovert says HI and the Introvert says nothing. This causes the Extrovert to suddenly have a lot to say. The Extrovert didn't get his charge up and he accuses the Introvert of not caring. The introvert disengages as fast as they can. Later on the introvert realizes it would have been less draining to say Hi... then to be accosted by the Extrovert. So they decide to say hi in the future and consider just the price they have to pay being out in public. Repeat thousands of times with many different people and it becomes just the way it is.

That's actually pretty funny. Congrats to your BIL and his sense of humor.

A fourth but much rarer source of truth would be a personal manifestation of the Lord Himself. Such as with Joseph Smith, Paul, the Nephites, etc. And could we classify creation as a source of truth? Truth is revealed in everything around us.

I've never heard of such a position on the stake level. So, that should tell you how it's been going.

Sounds similar to something I have seen/heard Scott Woodward talk about on several occasions. Here's one of his youtube videos talking about his heuristic for what he calls "doctrinal confidence":

@Ironhold It often seems in life that whenever given the task of draining the swamp that all of a sudden, crocodiles, snakes, misquotes, horrible storms and all kinds of undesirable swamp creatures ultimately become the primary focus of anyone attempting to do anything with or in the swamp. I cannot say what you should have done – only what I would have done. For any possible reference to the Church of Jesus Christ – I would submit (perhaps via email or text) to the stake presidency, high council and stake auxiliary presidencies (or any related person) anything I intended to be printed in the local paper where I was working – with a 48, 72 or whatever hour deadline for revisions. If I had nothing and nothing was added within the deadline – I would print that there was nothing provided. If anyone complained, I would simply say please provide your input on time, next time. Beyond that I would not complain or worry about anything and continue seeking input and to do my job for my employer. The Traveler

FIrst, I concur... the "headline" of Sowell changing his mind was click bait. He did not "change his mind." He simply found that Trump was walking the tightrope (which he described earlier) that few can actually do. Second, while it is "stitched together", it is not "fake." There is a difference between "deceptive editing" and "summarizing" or "collecting highlights." The parts which show him visually speaking the same words which we hear are real. The portion of him condemning the tariffs is real. It was a part of an interview with the Hoover Institution (start at 46:30). There are "some portions" that are AI generated. Look at the upper left corner of the screen. There is a notification in the upper left where it is AI generated. And you'll find that a very small portion was AI generated. The remainder of the words were actually spoken by Sowell. Yes, of course many of the statements came from multiple sources. This was clearly not a single interview or broadcast. But each individual statement reflects real principles that Sowell really believes. I've read enough of his works and listened to enough of his interviews to say: I'd be willing to bet that if he didn't say it, he said something that could easily be paraphrased into what we heard in the AI generated content. So, the rating on the fact-o-meter on whether that video was fake would be "partly, but not really." 1. He wasn't actually saying that tariffs always bad. You have to listen carefully to what he was actually condemning. Things got settled in a few months time. That seems to be "short term" to me. And I, of course, agree with Sowell -- short term, maybe. It seemed to work. The "constant changing of the rules" was a couple of months which were really just negotiation tactics. They were never meant to be long term. 2. Sowell actually said the following: These words were spoken by Sowell, from different sources. But even stitched together, they are in line with his economic school of thought. I am not aware that he has said anything about a low rate (10%) across the board reciprocal tariffs (good or bad) when the entire world is dead set on tariffs to begin with. I'm well aware of it. But all the parts that mattered were real. And I was "taken in" because 1. I'm familiar with who Sowell is and his writings. I know where he's coming from. I am familiar enough that I can sense when I'm hearing something that he wouldn't say. 2. Even the AI generated portions (which were minimal) were also in line with his economic theories. 3. AI still doesn't quite have vocalizations right. I can spot it a mile away. And only a few sentences in this entire video were AI generated. They were just cut/paste (and I did spot most of the cut paste). Until the technology improves, I'd have to be mostly asleep to believe an AI voice for more than one sentence.

Very cool @Phoenix_person!

Yes, he's married to my sister.

This guy? BYU professor Darin Self? https://www.darinself.com/

A bit of family news, my BIL just got elected to be the new chairman of the Utah Co Dem Party. This is how he broke the news on Bluesky. 😂

If what this individual is saying is correct, then odds are that Comey will be made to surrender the device he used for that photo and that social media posting so that digital forensics can be enacted. This will give the authorities access to everything on that device.

I think you meant divining rod. Welcome to the forums. We're happy to have to here.

Just remember the rules of this particular forum section for those responding. Support in Hard Times "In the quiet heart is hidden / Sorrow that the eye can't see." This Forum is to give encouragement and show compassion to those who are going through difficult times in relationships, with their testimony or with any other trial that they would like to have support from in a safe environment that offers the anonymity of the Internet. No judgment, demeaning or derogatory posts allowed: "To the wounded and the weary / I would show a gentle heart." Focus on the positives, the pure love of Christ, and how we can rise above to overcome difficult times.

Excellent poem. I remember trying to impart its wisdom to my 18 month old who was throwing a traumatized fit at having to put on her socks, but she wasn't having it. It took years, but I think she's finally coming around.

For those wondering about my earlier posts with doors: Ms. Duncan's untimely death: