Vort

Stupid Republicans. Probably Trump supporters.

BTW, I'm very happy to hear it, @Jamie123. I sincerely hope things are trending upward for you. As we say in America, you've had a hard row to hoe.

I don't think I asked a question in this thread. Are you sure you don't mean someone else? Sorry, @prisonchaplain. Misattribution on my part. I was reading and thinking about another thread along with this one, a thread that @Jamie123 started, and I didn't bother to, you know, think clearly. My apologies.

And to answer your question, @prisonchaplain: Yes, Latter-day Saint youth (and adults) struggle with the politics of their elders and their contemporaries. There is plenty of Trump dislike among Latter-day Saints, though to be sure he has his staunch defenders as well. It seems to me that many Saints fall on the political spectrum somewhere near the point where you hold your nose and vote for Trump, because he's the best of a bad lot. You may be aware that the Book of Mormon mentions a king named Morianton who arose among the ancient people of Jared. A descendant of a previous king named Riplakish who was tremendously wicked and led his people to destruction and ruin, Morianton again united the people through war, installed himself as king, and then ruled in a profitable and apparently just manner, so that the people anointed him to be king (that is, he was king not just by the right of warfare but by the consent of the people). But the tale of the Jaredite Morianton* includes an interesting observation: Morianton himself was a wicked man due to his "many whoredoms", and was cut off from the Lord. Ether 10:9-11 reads: And it came to pass after the space of many years, Morianton, (he being a descendant of Riplakish) gathered together an army of outcasts, and went forth and gave battle unto the people; and he gained power over many cities; and the war became exceedingly sore, and did last for the space of many years; and he did gain power over all the land, and did establish himself king over all the land. And after that he had established himself king he did ease the burden of the people, by which he did gain favor in the eyes of the people, and they did anoint him to be their king. And he did do justice unto the people, but not unto himself because of his many whoredoms; wherefore he was cut off from the presence of the Lord. I have heard many of the Saints, including myself, compare Trump to Morianton. Given the choice between Morianton and Riplakish, who would you choose? Morianton, of course. The Saints don't celebrate Trump's vainglorious rantings, but life under President Trump was simply better than under President Biden. If Trump is Morianton, Biden is Riplakish. The Saints, and Americans in general, don't have to love Trump in order to vote for him. They can be indifferent toward him or even dislike him and still conclude he is by far the best available option. Unless real evidence of deep corruption by Trump arises (and the current news stories about Trump are mostly hit pieces with lots of allegations, while the same news agencies studiously ignore the abundant, well-attested corruption of Biden and the Democrats), I will almost certainly vote for Trump should he win the Republican nomination. He's not my first choice, but after seeing what he accomplished as President when I didn't vote for him in 2016, I refuse to discount the man. Btw, Trump's idea to purchase Greenland was brilliant. He should have followed through. When the Netherland government so condescendingly told him that Greenlanders were in charge of their own destiny, he should immediately have approached them (the Greenlanders) with a buyout offer. The art of the deal and all that. It would have been the greatest acquisition since Alaska. *Note that the earlier Book of Mormon narrative (of a much later time period) mentions a Morianton among the Nephites who founded a city and created contention. The two Moriantons are separated by culture, language, and time (centuries, probably), so even though both were wicked, don't confuse them.

To be clear, I did not take offense at the journalist's characterizations. I don't think he had any intent to write a hit piece against the Church. I just bemoan, not so much deep ignorance, but the seeming utter lack of actually doing the research necessary to write authoritatively or at least competently on a topic. I realize that your typical news article is not War and Peace or a peer-reviewed work; I don't expect that. But do we not have editors any more? Is critical thinking no longer taught at institutes of higher education?

The last time I voted for an independent candidate, I voted for Gary Johnson. Not my finest moment. There are plenty—PLENTY—of Republicans that I would vote against. But off the top of my head, I can't think of even a single Democrat I would be willing to vote for. Thus, as TFP points out, I effectively vote a straight ticket, because I cannot in good conscience vote any other way.

At the risk of taking a joke too seriously, this rather obvious comic strikes at the core of the argument for "free will". Literal volumes have been written on this exact topic. Did God create our decision-making capacity? At the moment he created it, could he have done so differently? Did God in his omniscience know what choices we would make? If the answer to each of these questions is "yes", then it inexorably follows that our decisions are God's decisions. We are merely wetware programs following our created code. Any bugs in us must be attributable to the Creator, and thus his fault. The ancient theistic answer is that God is our Creator, yes, but God only creates good, so somehow we have polluted the process. This is manifestly a non-answer, and many (including Latter-day Saints) reject this explanation as facile and ultimately meaningless. It explains literally nothing. It's not even a good job of handwaving the argument away. The ancient atheistic answer, extremely popular today and considered quite modern, is that "free will" is an illusion. We are puppets on the strings of our own existence, ancestry, and history. We only think that we can decide things independently; we can't really do any such thing, of course. That's just silly. A mature and intelligent person will quickly conclude that free will is a societal illusion, adopted as a coping mechanism to shield us from the harsh realities of reality. Aside from being smugly and hopelessly cynical, this idea is so deeply self-contradictory that it is safely rejected out of hand. We have no free will, including in our outlooks and viewpoints—yet somehow we can transcend that by realizing that our idea of free will is false and there actually is no such thing. It might make a good comedy routine. It has long been pointed out that if we assume that God is truly omniscient, the clear implication is that our actions are ultimately fixed, because the future is perfectly knowable to a being like God that is in a certain position. This simply argues to the "free will is an illusion" idea, thus brilliantly reconciling the theistic and atheistic viewpoints in a magnificent orchestration of cynicism and despair. A thoughtful modern answer would examine. not whether "free will" exists, but what the term means. That would quickly point to a discussion on the mechanisms of decision-making. Whence derives our decision-making capacity? And what does it actually mean to decide something? What are the spiritual mechanisms (or for that matter, the biological mechanisms) of choosing? Of course, we don't know these things, and I see no immediate path to finding them out. Thus, we are left with what is actually a very scientific approach: Select a model and see where it leads. Using the solipsistic "anthropic principle", we can say that, hey, here we are, and we have to choose our model, so we might as well choose a model that allows us to have a real choice. (That would be the "free will" model.) Any other choice would be self-negating. Granted, then, that we have the ability to choose, how should we make choices? What should be our criteria? Cue the entrance of the entirety of Western—nay, human—philosophy.

A deeply ignorant article. Unsurprising; it's not like we aren't used to that. But still irritating. You'd think that a journalist would be more careful, though endless experience has shown this belief to be naive.

Interesting that Sherem was concerned exactly about this. I happen to agree most strongly with your former bishop: The fact alone that you are afraid that you have committed the unpardonable sin must mean that you have not committed the unpardonable sin. But it might mean that you have spiritually wounded yourself (and perhaps others) in a grave manner, as was the case with Sherem. For that matter, this is not unlike Alma's experience.

It's a folk protest song. Comes with the territory.

Any thoughts on the latest viral video sweeping the nation in mid-August of 2023? I won't link to it because of naughty words, but I'm pretty sure most of you know what I'm talking about.

Well, yes, of course. There's a much better than 99% chance that we carry some of each other's DNA.

As it so happens, I own a fountain pen. A friend gave it to me a few years ago.

Go for a run. Everyone knows cardio kills gains.

The glory of God, we are told, is intelligence. There is no glory, no intelligence, in that kingdom of no glory (note that modifier) which we sometimes call "outer darkness". So it seems to me that your statement is false by definition. The kingdom of darkness is not a kingdom of glory. It is a kingdom utterly bereft of all glory, all light, all knowledge. It is the abode of those who look upon a noonday sun and proclaim it dark. Not sure why you are intent on calling it a "kingdom of glory". I'm sure you have a deeper point, but I don't see it. Anyway, I've said my piece, stated my objections, and outlined how I understand things. I don't think I have anything else to add to the discussion, so for my part, I'll just leave it there.

I don't understand your confusion. No one is suggesting that there is not a "kingdom of no glory". The existence of just such a kingdom is our clear doctrine. What people are objecting to is your assertion that "There is a kingdom of glory less than the telestial in which people abide." This is untrue. If you accidentally misspoke, just say so. Not a big deal.

Actually... In fact, there is not a kingdom of glory less than the telestial.

Assuming he is her ancestor along only one line, he would be less related to her than he would be to almost anyone among his actual contemporaries. Looks like 2-23. That's, what, one ten-millionth?

Welcome, Dylan. FCA is just a group of people who want to associate with each other and work toward common goals. It appears they welcome Latter-day Saints as members, but don't want them as leaders. Is this fair? To be blunt: Yes, it's fair. People who form associations are allowed to choose how those associations manifest themselves. If we're honest, we will admit (heck, we will openly proclaim) that we do not see many doctrinal issues in the same light as our non-LDS Christian cousins. Look at it this way. If your non-LDS friends wanted to join you in your Young Men's activities, would you welcome them? Of course you would. Would your bishop then call them to formal positions of leadership within the youth groups? Impossible, or at least highly unlikely. But that's discrimination! Well...yes. Yes, it is discrimination. The word "discrimination" means the ability to make distinctions between things. We can discriminate between a small cat and a large rat, and pick the cat out 10 times out of 10. Based on that distinction, we decide how we're going to treat the animal. We Latter-day Saints are in fact distinguishable from our other Christian friends, a thing we're not unhappy about. But this also means they probably won't ask us to preach in their churches, even if we visit their churches. They probably won't ask us to pray at their barbecues, even if we show up at their barbecues. And they probably won't invite us to be leaders in their organizations, even if they invite us to participate in them. Try not to take it personally. Instead, if you're going to participate in FCA, do so with a positive attitude. Don't worry about leadership in the group. It could be worse; they could accept your application for leadership, then demand you change your beliefs and actions. This way is probably better for all involved.

Yes, but it's not a kingdom of glory. No glory, which is to say (I assume), no intelligence. Zero. It is a kingdom, but contrary to your assertion, is not a kingdom of glory. Thus, it is called "outer darkness", for there is no faint glimmer of intelligence illuminating that space. It is a kingdom of death.

A screaming goat sounds exactly like a screaming person. It's a Venn intersection of bizarre, terrifying, and hilarious.

The cognoscenti have long realized that Bambi is a nickname for Baphomet.

What makes you think anything having to do with Andrew Tate might constitute a "bitter pill" for me? Not sure this is true. It certainly hasn't worked that way for the left.