Vort

The Spirit prompted me to ignore this parenthetical warning.

Yes, I did. I try hard to be honest, and not only when talking about Leftist evils. So tell me, what do you see as the Leftist and Right-wing playbooks?

Why? I assume you must believe that things would be worse, not better, with a split. I can respect that and even agree that it's a possibility (maybe even likely). But the way things have been going in the last even five years, I see little hope and little evidence that we would be worse off with a national split. The main problem I see is the likelihood of Balkanization. Democrat/Republican or Leftist/Conservative is the typical split, but further splits on issues such as abortion, health care, jaywalking, and getting rid of Mormons would be sure to follow. There is a minimal level of tolerance that is absolutely required to make our republic work. The Left has abandoned that tolerance like rats off a sinking ship, but if we follow their example, all will be lost. I do not know the answer, but I am no longer convinced that national divorce is not the right path. Well, maybe not the right path, but the better path compared to the alternative of doing nothing.

Indeed I do. The Right's playbook appears to be mostly stupidity, shooting from the hip and being reactionary.

This is incorrect. Knowing how the Left reacts, and even wrongly applying that to every individual Leftist, does not mean that you will act rude to them in turn. It means that you can see what's happening, and perhaps that you are overgeneralizing from a broad truth to individual applications that you are not qualified to make. The accusation of overgeneralization leading to evil acts is itself an overgeneralization. You cannot seriously be suggesting that the Left does not assume false and vicious things about those who disagree with them, regardless of assumptions (or lack thereof) the opposition may make about the Left. Only if that tone is justified (or unjustified) in both directions. If someone is hitting me and I say, "Quit hitting me!", that person is not therefore justified in returning, "YOU quit hitting ME!", or "It's okay when I hit you, because it's fair, but you aren't allowed to hit me!" Please note that this is exactly the Left's playbook: "It's okay when we do it, because we're virtuous, insightful, and awakened to reality. But it's not okay when you do it; just another example of your dishonesty and corruption."

Social insight: They will never respect your beliefs. Never. Not in a thousand years, not with the mindset they have. If you respect their beliefs and "respect their pronouns" (a stupid phrase, let's admit), do so because you believe it the right thing to do. Don't do it because they will reciprocate. They will not reciprocate. The best you can ever reasonably hope for is tolerance, and the Left abandoned any pretense to tolerance a generation ago.

@laronius literally just gave the answer I typed out. That's the danger of respond-as-you-go. Summary: I suspect there is a difference between receiving the Holy Ghost and experiencing the Holy Ghost. The latter is always possible for any sincere soul. The former can be done only through covenant and, apparently, not in its fullness when you live next door to the mortal Jesus Christ and interact with him daily.

I asked ChatGPT why the speed of light was so excruciatingly slow. The AI firmly corrected me by insisting that the speed of light was not at all slow, and was in fact unbelievably fast. It took a bit of back and forth before I could convince ChatGPT to concede that c might indeed be considered slow, though it would not actually grant the point outright.

I think this is reasonable. I also think that we in 21st-century western culture think in terms of "historical" and "mythical". For better or for worse, that's how we classify things. (Which is not even self-consistent—after all, "history" does not mean what actually happened, but what the records say about what happened. It's entirely possible to have a false history; indeed, one might argue that almost all our histories are false, since none is a true and perfect reflection of what actually happened.) I have postulated, and heard many others postulate, that the past is essentially unknowable. Even our own past actions and memories can be misinterpreted, misremembered, and falsified. The law recognizes this basic fatal flaw in any recounting of an event, and thus establishes "beyond a reasonable doubt" as the level needed to convict someone of a felony. Absolute certainty is understood to be impossible, so the law requires no such thing. Divine law, of course, is another thing entirely. I feel quite sure that our every act is recorded in our very being and physical makeup, never to be lost or forgotten, however much we may pine for it to be. Anyway, the point is, when you say that the Book of Mormon is not historical, the common and obvious interpretation is that you are saying it is mythical or ahistorical. That is why I insist that, whatever its imperfections, the Book of Mormon is indeed fundamentally historical. The so-called historicity of the Book of Mormon is a more or less permanent discussion point between believers and non-believers. I fall firmly in the believer camp.

Very interesting speculation. I think one could make a pretty strong argument for this.

I think it's pretty well accepted among Latter-day Saints that Adam and Eve had at least one generation of children before Cain and Abel were born.

The possible demise of Bud Light doesn't accomplish anything positive for the good guys, whether your good guys are political conservatives/libertarians or Latter-day Saints. It's not like people will stop drinking beer, and it's not like Heineken is a bastion of moral or political sanity. AB's effort to "diversify" Bud Light was not done out of a misguided sense of moral leadership. It was a pure stab at getting more money. We may rejoice that their perverse money-making scheme didn't work, but it's kicking against the tide. In our generation, the moral turpitude of transgenderism has been completely covered up and even reversed, at least in western countries. Our hope for sanity lies in traditionally Muslim countries and <shudder> Asian demagogueries. We have brought this upon ourselves, though for the life of me I can't think of decisions or actions by Latter-day Saints in past decades that could have reversed or even stemmed this tide of filth. I feel defeated and discouraged. Fortunately, I know that to be a sinful mindset, so I can condemn my own stupidity and hopefully flagellate myself back into good spirits. The beatings will continue etc.

I'll let the listener decide who contributed which.

Go to bed, you loser.

I rate Elder Ballard a prophet.

Why is it somehow harmful to suggest that God loves without condition? It's what we all want, isn't it? So if everyone likes it, why not believe it? Aside from whether or not it's you know, actually true, the only would be because such a belief leads to bad actions. But what in heaven's name could be the bad effect of believing "God loves me unconditionally"? Because as I look around, I see that the implication that is always, 100% of the time attached to that statement is: "It Doesn't Matter What I Do". Whatever I do, God loves me. And a loving parent will not lead his child to destruction, right? So eat, drink, and be merry! God has created all men, and in the end he will save all men! The Lord revealed that "eternal damnation" did not necessarily last forever; "eternal" in this sense is an adjective describing the kind or type or intensity of damnation, rather than its duration. So the choice of words clearly matters to God, who uses words for his own purposes and then expects us to get on board with his usage. Thus we have "terrestrial" used almost completely outside its normal literal meaning of "earthly" or even a figurative meaning of "fallen; worldly", instead meaning "a degree of glory less than that of the celestial but greater than that of telestial." And of course, "celestial" does not mean "of the sky" or "in the starry heavens", which is its literal meaning, but "of a glory surpassing all others, completely beyond human ken." (And the apparently made-up word "telestial", which given its contextual meaning we may only guess may have to do with the Greek prefix "tele-", meaning "far away" or "at a distance".) The point isn't really that "unconditional love" is not a term used in scripture—though if it were, I doubt this conversation would even be taking place. The point is rather that the term "unconditional love" arguably does more harm than good, especially among many in our selfish, childish, painfully immature society where people insist on defecating on holy things and then expect the Holy One to pat them gently on their heads and tell them what funny girls and boys they are.

Helaman 15:4 "But behold my brethren, the Lamanites hath he [the Lord] hated because their deeds have been evil continually, and this because of the iniquity of the tradition of their fathers. But behold, salvation hath come unto them through the preaching of the Nephites; and for this intent hath the Lord prolonged their days." EDIT: I really should read a post thoroughly before responding to it.

Elder Nelson weighs in on the topic. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2003/02/divine-love?lang=eng

Um... no, not really, except that circumcision is vastly less damaging.

Bilingual palindromes are tight.

Tom's mot.

There was a time, not so long ago, when Led Zeppelin was considered cutting-edge hard rock or metal, the mere playing of which was sure to conjure Satan.

They are all shameless, brazen hussies, the lot of them.