Vort

https://www.delawareohionews.com/legal-statements/ Delaware Ohio News Home Legal Statements Legal Statements Disclaimer All stories herein are parodies (satire, fiction, fake, not real) of people and/or actual events. All names are made up (unless used in a parody of public figures) and any similarity is purely coincidental. DelawareOhioNews.com is not affiliated with Ohio Wesleyan University or any other publication. DelawareOhioNews.com is intended for use by those age 18 and older. If you think your child can handle this humor, it is up to you. We are not role models. All stories are copyright protected by Subvertical Limited, a Limited Liability Company registered in the state of Ohio.

That's why I stick with the trusty "I don't wish to be pedantic, but you're stupid."

Honestly, this is the best possible smack Utah has. Until BYU wins, it can't really respond.

There was a time when the football rivalry between BYU and the U of U was fun and light-hearted. When I was a student at BYU in the 1980s, that is how we approached it. I was shocked to discover that many U of U students, even back then, sincerely despised BYU and honestly wished evil upon its football team as well as the institution itself and especially its students. Charges of "holier-than-thou" attitudes abounded, though I rarely saw such from BYU students. Acquaintances at the U of U confirmed that the bitter feelings were both sincere and widely felt. I avoid most rivalry nonsense now. Some U of U students, alumni, and supporters I count as friends, even family. I have been disappointed to find in my adult life that some U of U alums proudly wear a chip on their shoulder and actively denigrate BYU as an institution as well as its students and alumni, even at Church. A better man than I would take pity on such souls. For myself, I tend to despise those who despise me and things I find sacred. There is nothing ennobling or fun or enjoyable about "rivalry" interactions with Utah. U of U students, alumni, and faculty have seen to that. It's all hatred and virtue-signaling allegations of oppression. Mockery is common; a favorite of many U of U students is "sacrament" using Jello and whiskey shots. Har de har har. Personally, I am all for BYU dropping U of U from any and all sports and other intermural activities forever. Winning streak? Losing streak? Who cares? If they want to proclaim their superiority, that's okay by me. Let them wallow in their own filth. Just keep those I care about away from them. The point is, there is nothing holy about it. (And for the record, I'm certainly not talking about mirkwood. Don't mean to rain on his parade or his rivalry smack. I consider him one of the Ute friends I mentioned back in the second paragraph.)

I wonder how our modern sensibilities apply in the eternal sense to such people. I am reminded of Ammon the Disarming, who told the Old King bluntly that if he (the Old King) were to die at that moment, his soul could not be saved. Not "would not", but "could not". Yet in a matter of dozens of hours, this exceedingly wicked man was converted to God and spent the rest of his life (not long) serving God. Walkara indeed seems like a brute and a force of evil. I'm just not sure what that means in any eternal sense. If our judgments of good and evil here in mortality are so ephemeral, passing such judgment seems futile. I suppose that is why we have been encouraged (read: commanded) not to judge people in what Elder Oaks called a final sense. tl;dr—Righteous judgment is hard.

I hate that, especially when my tendons leave a gap between my shoulder and my armpit.

What about rat poison? Should people take rat poison? Warfarin

"To suffer" means "to allow" or "to tolerate" or "to endure", as in Christ's injunction to his disciples to "suffer the little children to come unto me." "I am suffering a toothache" originally meant "I am bearing (or putting up with) a toothache." So "charity suffereth long" means only that charity is longsuffering; that is, charity is patient and puts up with a lot of nonsense and foolishness for a long time. You know those people who say they don't suffer fools gladly? They are the opposite of charitable. Thank God that he suffers fools gladly, or we would all be lost forever.

I think both observations are untrue: Exceptions are often mentioned (but not dwelt upon) in conservative circles, and when discussed are treated with great seriousness. Why are such exceptions not discussed more among pro-life conservatives? Because they're exceptions. What do we have today? We have women killing their babies. Think about that for a minute. Why is that not the front-and-center topic in Every Single Abortion Discussion that ever takes place? Why on earth would anyone worry that maybe the conservatives just aren't talking about the relatively rare exceptions? The problem is not and never has been close-minded, uptight conservatives. The problem is that many people seek to convince everyone that killing an unborn baby is a woman's God-given right. This is appalling to any decent human being, yet is the status quo in the world today. It has been the default position among leftists and media types (but I repeat myself) in the US since at least the late 1970s, a few years after the US Supreme Court permanently disgraced itself with the tortured non-reasoning of Roe v. Wade.

In the rare occasions when I have held leadership positions, I have made it a point to thank people, both individuals and groups, rather than "like to thank" them. I fully realize that the "we'd like to blah blah blah" is just a social softener, but I see no need to soften an expression of gratitude (or for that matter, an instruction or notification).

"Let's agree to disagree." Not that such a thought is not justified at times, when two people come to an impasse based on fundamental philosophical differences. But in most venues, including this forum, "Let's agree to disagree" usually means "I can't respond to what you're saying and I don't want to concede your argument, so I'm going to pretend that we're at a philosophical impasse." In such cases, it's either a dishonest way to avoid admitting the weakness of one's argument or a prideful (and thus shameful) attempt at face-saving.

Perhaps that is because the more "liberal" and "progressive" sides of the Church are neither liberal nor progressive. I might find such "revelations" more convincing if those who reported them were no so often the same people who clamor for the Church's leaders to receive "revelation" that their pet perversion, e.g. homosexual "marriage", is approved of God, making prayer for divine revelation more or less like ordering your favorite hamburger from McDonald's. It is telling that such people seem never to receive revelation from God to avoid abortion, eschew homosexuality, or anything else that goes against their wants. All of their so-called revelations are easy and convenient (for them). I know nominal Church members who are very unorthodox and in some cases unbelieving, yet who, I am convinced, have received authentic revelation. It baffles them to know by revelation that X is true, despite their deep desire to believe Not X. It's a challenge for them. But such people are at least honest enough to accept the divine revelation on its own terms (insofar as they can) and not pervert it into some twisted thing to justify their own prejudices. It takes little moral backbone beyond basic integrity to recognize spurious and self-serving "revelation" that flies in the face of clear gospel teachings.

Amazing. These people are in their eighth decade. Quite impressive. Sadly, it sounds like there will be no original music, only retreads. Still, it should be enjoyable.

You are reading it wrong. Eternal life consists in knowing God, living as God lives, and receiving from God all things that he will give you. One of those things is the blessing of having exalted parentage. This is given you when you are born to a man and a woman who are sealed to each other. But of course, vanishingly few people in world history were and are born to a man and a woman who are sealed to each other. What of them? For them, God offers an exact equivalent: Being sealed to one's parents in a holy temple of God after one's parents have been sealed to each other as husband and wife. In so doing, one gains access to all the blessings offered to those who were so born. As above, you are misinterpreting what I wrote. To gain eternal life, one must accept and live up to certain covenants one makes with God, including e.g. baptism and the oath and covenant of the Priesthood for men*. But what of the vast majority of people who are not able to learn and make those covenants in their mortal lifetime? Again, God offers them an exact equivalent: Receiving those ordinances by proxy and learning to live by them in a postmortal state. *Though not specified in scripture, it is possible that women, too, must accept and obey the oath and covenant of the Priesthood in order to gain eternal life. I base this supposition on the fact that women are one half of the parties that enter the highest (known) order of the Priesthood. They do not hold the Priesthood as men do, but they are blessed and bound by it as men are, which makes me suppose that they receive those blessings by covenant, just as men do. I hope that has helped you. My problem with what you have written stems from your initial post: This is misleading. The still small voice of the Holy Ghost teaches truth, but is easily rejected by those who do not have ears to hear. Those who "lived a life of Celestial caliber" normally have done so after hearing the gospel preached to them. The phrase "make it to the Celestial Kingdom" grates most punishingly on my ears. Exaltation is not a competition. It is not a long list of rules and requirements that we must fulfill or we will fail the exam. We don't "make it" to the celestial kingdom as if it's a prize that we eventually win. The celestial kingdom is the dwelling place of the exalted, and we are exalted through the atonement of Jesus Christ when we have become the kind of person who can endure and enjoy exaltation. Paul and others do indeed speak of this using the metaphor of running a race, by which they encourage us to continue even in trial and distress. But the nature of eternal life and exaltation is much different from—I would say opposite to—the nature of a competition where opposing parties strive for mastery over each other. In any case, the answer to your question above is unambiguously, "Yes." There is a great, huge, unbridgeable need for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Without the Restored Church, the gospel is not preached and the power of Priesthood authority is not manifest to men in the flesh. Without the gospel and the authority of the holy Priesthood, salvation is not available to us. And without the ordinances of the temple in the mortal world, those covenants are unavailable to the dead. As I wrote earlier in this thread, exactly no one "lives a life worthy enough to be admitted to the Celestial Kingdom". We do not "earn" our exaltation in any tit-for-tat sense. We are not exalted because we're sooooooooo good. This may be true, but is irrelevant to what seemed to be your point: That it doesn't really matter if people join the Restored Church and thus enter the kingdom of God in mortality, because it'll always be there afterward. Yes, it matters. It matters a great deal. That a merciful God provides backup plans to help his children doesn't make his primary plan of no importance.

Dupe.