bytebear

Maybe, maybe not. Most family members of hoarders don't end up hoarding themselves. She may have simply stayed to keep the situation stable. Probably got a lot of flack if she attempted to clean up. Frankly I am surprised you aren't getting more pushback about throwing things out.

The point is, those examples of racism are often experienced by people who aren't a minority. It's like you are comparing bad experiences of one group to the ideal life of white people. Fact is, a lot of white people are shot by cops. And per-encounter statistics show that whites are actually more likely to be shot than blacks. But we never, EVER hear about these stories, because they don't fit the narrative.

I have my own story involving unfair treatment from the police. If I told you the story, and didn't tell you my race, you could easily call it a racism thing, or profiling, or whatever. I just realized that some cops are unfair and, frankly, jerks.

I have an unpopular belief, and that is that Fanny Alger was not a plural wife. I believe she was accused of an affair with Smith, and that the rumor was false, and it ended up being elevated to the status of her being his first plural wife, but the timing is all wrong. One bride years before any others? No, I think whatever went down with Alger, it had nothing to do with plural marriage.

This just sparked an idea in my head. A missionary is defined by his role, but also by his actions. If a missionary decides to stop doing the work, stops wearing a suit an tie, abandons his companion and decides to just start living as a regular person, is he still a missionary?

That's not true at all. Eternal progression has no start and no end. We know that God the Son went through a progression from spirit to mortal to spirit to immortal. But that doesn't mean that God didn't exist any differently between those transitions, or that there is some kind of finite beginning to God. Because there was a time when God the Son did not have a celestial body of flesh and bone. The state of being of one personage is independent of the existence of God. Both past and future. Infinite and forever.

I understood the point is God still has free will. He can sin, he can oppose his own plan, but that would make him not God.

God is a state of being, not an individual person. You could even say it is Logos, or conscienceless as he says. Fits perfectly within LDS doctrine. "God is that primordial intellect in its totality" But that intellect is shared among individual beings, the Father, and the Son specifically. And we are promised we can achieve the same state. I think the only question is how does intellect and physical tangible beings correlate. How do we share a common Godliness but still retain individualism? Don't know, but it does seem to be how it works.

Do you really need to ask?

I almost cried when I saw Lando. Sorry, but I am one of those old farts who saw the original trilogy in theaters at the perfect age (7, 9, 11) and have a nostalgic heart. Also, nothing can be worse than Episode I. Nothing. And I actually enjoyed Episode VIII maybe even more than VII. And they both are way better than Episode I. I have no connection to the new characters. I finally can remember their names (mostly). Leia flying across space is still better than anything in Episode I. I also enjoyed Solo quite a lot, and am disappointing that it didn't get more attention and praise. The capes alone made it a worthy addition to the Star Wars canon. Now I have no idea what will happen in the next movie. I imagine it will have a lot of random, illogical, nostalgic touches. Ewoks on Tatooine fighting Wompas. Sure. why not? But I suspect that we will find out that Ray and Kilo Ren are actually twins (or cousins) and were separated to protect them, and she trains with ghost Luke while reading up on those text books that Yoda said were useless. I just hope the plot is passable, and at least slightly different than the standard Star Wars plot - Big death star threatens the galaxy. One team to turn off the force field, another group awaits the attack and when it goes down does a miraculous shot to blow it up, while a lone hero confronts the villain. Whatever happens, I will enjoy the ride. Did I mention that Episode I sucks?

I believe it means that the house of Israel (i.e. the remnant of the tribe of Joseph, i.e. descendants of Lehi) will be judged by the 12 apostles that Jesus chose in Israel. Now, does that mean the original 12 men (because Judas would be difficult). I think rather it means the apostles of that dispensation, whoever they may be. But Peter, James and John would be the top picks I would assume.

I find it interesting that the prophet of the Lord just allowed the blessings of baptism be given to the children of gay parents. And yet, we are still questioning that that child will not receive the blessings of the Lord? I have no reason to believe that such a child will be blessed any less than that of a child of a non-member. I also take heed from the scriptures for those who reject this decision, just as I did those who rejected the decision made 3 years ago. "Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness!’…" Driving out demons?

Well, I look at sin from two angles. One is the sin of the outsider, and the other is the sin of the insider, who decides they are superior because they can point and mock the sin of the outsider. Both sins, in my opinion, will keep you out of the presence of God.

No, it's not. You might as well be doing studies on children raised by Mormons over Lutherans. Or Amish vs Methodists. There are principles that help people be good parents, but there is nothing inherit about your sexual orientation that makes you a more loving one. So, no, God did not look at the studies on how parents would do, and created this law accordingly.

I think you misinterpret the verse. The law exists because it has eternal ramifications. Gay couples cannot be sealed to their children. But neither can parents who prefer a beer at the end of the day. And neither can a parent married to a non-member. And neither could those who married black people prior to 1978. You seem to be singling out one group of people because of cultural issues, but ignoring all the other sins out there. it's almost as if you want to use God's law to be a bigot. And that is unfortunate. Particularly when the Lord and the prophet have clearly invited these people into His church with love.