Senior Moderator
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Just_A_Guy last won the day on June 26

Just_A_Guy had the most liked content!


About Just_A_Guy

  • Rank
    Senior Moderator
  • Birthday December 2

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Utah County, Utah, USA
  • Religion

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Just_A_Guy

    Temples And Protection

    No one said they are *exactly* alike in every way. What I said was: It had a Holy of Holies, which like modern celestial rooms represented coming back into the presence of the very throne of God. The specific uses of the various rooms, and the liturgies themselves, differ widely between modern LDS temples and ancient Israelitish ones. But both, speaking broadly, housed a series of rituals in which a human symbolically draws ever-nearer to, and eventually returns to, the presence of God Himself. Others can enter those rooms to receive specific ordinances under apostolic authority (which ordinances are not liturgically the same as those performed by the ancient “high priests” of the Aaronic order in an ancient “Holy of Holies”). And in modern practice many (most) of these rooms even double as sealing rooms under ordinary circumstances (though the one in the Salt Lake Temple does not).
  2. Just_A_Guy

    Taking Odds on the Election

    I have nothing against her personally. But if we are already looking to a thirty-two-year-old White House press secretary who’s only really been in the national spotlight for less than six months, and trying to shoehorn her into the vice presidency; then I think that sort of illustrates my point.
  3. I’m happy to welcome Brother West in the temple if a duly ordained common judge of Israel issues him a recommend. Doesn’t mean I won’t consider his past if he comes begging for my vote. Besides, I’ve been told in no uncertain terms that a candidate’s personal virtue has nothing—nothing!!!—to do with politics. It’ll be interesting. As I understand it Trump’s numbers among blacks have actually been decent (for a Republican), at least in part due to his work on criminal justice reform (which, it’s being alleged, he now repudiates—maybe lamestream media FUD?) and his working with KimYe on some-pardon-or-other (the name of the person pardoned escapes me at the moment). My gut—which could easily be wrong—is that Candidate West would probably siphon off the blacks who were thinking about voting for Trump, while doing very little damage to Biden. Time will tell . . .
  4. Just_A_Guy

    Taking Odds on the Election

    Haley maybe. Noem . . . I’ll have to Google her, I guess?
  5. Just_A_Guy

    Taking Odds on the Election

    The gods at Wikipedia seem to say otherwise . . . That Reagan’s polling was so good he basically chose an “above the fray” strategy and didn’t really campaign in earnest until he lost the Iowa straw poll. I was, after all, alive then; as you are fond of reminding me.
  6. Just_A_Guy

    Taking Odds on the Election

    I wonder whether anyone in the GOP today has the kind of intra- and cross-party luster that they can parlay into the presidency four years from now, that Reagan had in ‘76. (Reagan’s convention speech that year positioned him as heir apparent before Ford had even left the White House.) The GOP has been doing a splendid job of eating its own lately. . .
  7. I wonder whether we aren’t judging many of the colonials by 21st-century notions of “Christianity”, and maybe @prisonchaplain can weigh in on this. But it seems to me that nowadays Christians—especially Protestants—are all “Jesus” this and “Jesus” that. But Winthrop’s “City on a Hill” sermon doesn’t contain the words “Jesus” or “Christ” once. I wonder whether earlier Americans, while undeniably Christian in attitude, simply were more reticent to invoke the name of Jesus due to some desire to keep the name sacred (a perspective that retains some potency among our own fellow Saints today). Maybe modern researchers assume that since Washington didn’t use the vocabulary of modern Christians, he must not have actually thought much of Christ. I wonder whether, if forced to apply their assumptions and techniques to the surviving works of some colonial preacher (Cotton Mather, for example), those researchers would be compelled to reach the same conclusion about him as they do about Washington.
  8. Just_A_Guy

    Taking Odds on the Election

    That’s why I haven’t been strident in predicting Trump’s loss this year, though things do seem to look pretty bleak at the moment. I am inclined to think, though, that if he loses—conservatives and conservatism will be as vulnerable as they’ve been at any time since 2003; and maybe even since 1976.
  9. 1. To view the degrees of glory as something you either “earn” or “are sentenced to”, is to miss the whole point of the Plan of Salvation. It’s not about what you do; it’s about what you become. To suggest that you’ve reached a point in life where you are no longer able to become celestial material—or to suggest that, having become celestialized, you are “owed” a certain form of existence—is fundamentally to deny the atonement of Christ. 2. The scriptures suggest that physical pain itself is a condition limited to fallen mortality. As far as how a resurrected body would react to a maiming-type event: it’s all conjecture at this point; but it seems to me that most maiming-type accidents are either the result of a) careless/limited information/foresight by the injured person, and/or b) being subject to the powers of a malicious third party. I have no reason to believe that either a) or b) would be the case in eternity. To speculate about a resurrected being getting their arm stuck in a meat grinder, or stabbing another resurrected being just to see what would happen—one may as well ask if God would ever torture kittens for fun. I suppose it may be physically possible, but His perfected character—and those of resurrected beings—renders it utterly inconceivable. That’s what the thousand years of hell does—it offers individual deconstruction as an alternative to individual destruction. Where it succeeds, the result is redemption and a nature that renders the individual—if not fully prepared to join the council of gods as a peer and exercise divine authority over new generations of creations—at least finally able and willing to abide some form of law that renders them absolutely harmless to others. Where the process doesn’t succeed, the result is perdition—the state of being lost—the only state, according to scripture, in which there has been no redemption. 3. I don’t know whether sexual desire will even exist amongst resurrected beings, or solely among certain classes of resurrected beings. But if we spend our time in the here-and-now wondering about spending an eternity having sex rather than—say—spending an eternity composing symphonies, or studying architecture, or calculating gravitational constants, or making the perfect soufflé, or just watching a sunset and shooting the breeze with our loved ones; then the world (and especially, our sexual urges) are probably dominating our priorities a little more than they ought.
  10. Just_A_Guy

    Temples And Protection

    Art thou the only “Christian” in a forum full of Mormon heretics, and knowest not these things?
  11. Just_A_Guy

    BoM Is Abolitionist

    @MarginOfError, I’m pretty sure @Carborendum is Korean by ethnicity. Hence his tongue-in-cheek comment about being of a superior race. As to the topic at hand: I have no problem acknowledging that when you have a relatively homogenous society, people who don’t match the majority’s norms are going to have difficulty fitting into that society. I do have problems with race-baiters who pretend that that’s exclusively a “white” or “western” tendency, or who suggest that the solution is a wholesale disavowal of intra-cultural majority norms for no other reason than that they make minorities uncomfortable.
  12. I don’t know that those are the only two alternatives. The case at hand concerns me for at least two reasons: because a) the cop apparently had a history of misconduct, and b) it sounds like maybe the Taser was useless and the cop knew (or should have known) it. I don’t know whether any of that’s true; nor am I well situated to find out. Our country has a system where one agency is assigned to gather the facts and evidence and pass it on to a prosecutor, who presents it to a judge, who gives the defendant an opportunity to make his case and then hands the case off to twelve (or nine, in Utah’s case) citizens who are specifically chosen for their ability and willingness to sift through all the evidence available in an impartial way and reach a conclusion. Having done some sniffing on public cases and unearthed details that the press never saw fit to disclose to the public; and also having been tangentially involved in some high-profile cases where the press only got involved because someone saw it as tactically advantageous to involve them (resulting in some outrageously one-aided public coverage)—I’m personally leery of the ability of “the public” to make an informed second-guessing of the decisions made by police administrators and/or the findings of fact arrived at by a court of law following due process. As a new lawyer, I was trained that when dealing with the press I should never say anything more than “we have faith in the court system to arrive at a just result, and we would ask the public for patience as the process plays out”. I have absolutely *no* patience for lawyers who deliberately try their cases in the court of public opinion. When it looks strongly like a person is actually being denied due process—sure, go have a protest or whatever. But what bugs me about this case (and many other cases invoked in the whole BLM debate), is that a) people have already made up their minds that the process isn’t going to work; b) they base that on previous perceived “failures” of the system where they really don’t know enough to say whether the system actually failed or succeeded; and c) their perceptions of the current situation are probably more based on partisan or ethnic allegiances than on the facts of the case itself.
  13. Just_A_Guy

    Victory Garden

    It’s like America, but . . . south.
  14. Just_A_Guy

    BoM Is Abolitionist

    As I understand it, “Abolitionist” was kind of a term of art in the antebellum period that applied specifically to the policy of compelling (by force if necessary) slaveowners in their home states to immediately emancipate their slaves with no thought of compensation. That seems natural to us now; but under this definition, Joseph Smith (by advancing a sort of buy-back program) wasn't really an “abolitionist” as Americans of the period would have understood the term. Many, many early Americans disagreed with slavery and wanted to end it, but preferred using other means and thus wouldn’t have fit the 1830 (or even 1855) description of “abolitionist”. This may seem like gnat-straining, but it’s important to keep in mind when you see early Church literature and sermons that often virulently condemn “abolitionism”. In general, early Saints had no problem with the idea of living in a slave-free society; they just weren’t willing to use violence to attain that goal.
  15. Just_A_Guy

    Book of Mormon white supremacy??

    See? Leprosy, I tell you.