mordorbund

You can totally see the wires. Very clever of him to spin it as a "one string teather (sic) test".

Missed this earlier. I wouldn't have bothered posting if I had read this first. File mine under "redundantly superfluous".

The article you cite points out that he prefers biblical prophets be viewed within the context of when they lived and served. The 20th century prophets doubled down on fundamentalism for a reason. At the turn of the century sophists applauded Darwin's findings and concluded God (of the gaps) was dead. Oh, but when they cheered the portion in parenthesis went unuttered. Midcentury biblical scholars revisited their assumptions. Naturism is en vogue today, and in Talmage's time you could find a great many scholars who took the Bible at face value and were often cross-trained in theology. Between the historical and naturist eras was the era of skepticism. The Bible was viewed as propaganda with little grounding in history or reality. There's a reason why McConkie used many of the same sources Talmage did when writing The Mortal Messiah. Elders Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie are favorite punching bags, but they are the Pauls of our day. The majority of the New Testament was penned by Paul and the supermajority of New Testament doctrine comes through him. He's even open about sharing his opinion, but I don't hear the same disdain sent his way. Returning to the article, perhaps we should apply the same standard to our own prophets and recognize having modern prophets means they speak in a modern context. Or perhaps we should simply push the criticisms back in time and lament because it hurts to realize that some of our 2nd Millennia BC prophets had a geocentric view of the cosmos. I feel that now in the 21st century if people can't relate to the context of the mid-20th century they probably shouldn't read works that are 70 years old.

PSA: There really is nothing here. Don't put lemon juice on your screen, and certainly do NOT apply heat.

That wasn't the conclusion.

That only serves to reinforce my conclusion.

I've been reading my grandparents' history and I have to tell you, the government during WWII was not an altruistic assembly with pure motives. They told people to recycle their aluminum to help with the war effort even as stores rolled out brand new ones of aluminum cookware. And that's to say nothing of the growing government programs that weren't rescinded after the war was done, the reign of a president who did not voluntarily step down after 2 terms and who threatened to flood the Supreme Court with as many Justices as necessary to get his way.

When half the electorate honestly believes the current president is a new Hitler, I think the responsible thing for everyone is to think twice about how much power we give him.

Is "controlled burn" for "wildfires" a metaphor for modern times?

"Even I didn't see that coming!" -Nathan Poe

I hear @mirkwood hoards them.

How did they make it to the quarterfinals dressed like that?

I’ve thought about that as well. Would the Bay Area be comfortable with the Mayor issuing orders to close “non-essential” businesses that cater specifically to gay people? What if it’s in the name of public health, or to slow the spread of disease? Is the authority or the rationale any different from the one currently employed?

And let's not forget the temples being built as part of multi-purpose buildings. Perhaps one day we'll see one built on top of a desalination plant*. *If it's after 10am and you haven't heard a good rumor yet then it's time to start one.

I'll ruin the joke by explaining it. This thread has gone meta. It started out discussing the mark of the beast, was wounded by time and disinterest, and has now come fully back to life. It is typologically the very thing it was discussing.

Wow. I learned a lot about the beast by reading this thread.

1st off, congratulations (pre-)boomer. Look, are we under martial law or not? If we are then proclaiming looters will be shot is not sensationalist enough to warrant a headline. If we're not then this is ridiculous.

Wayback machine shows this page existed back in June. https://web.archive.org/web/20190606070508/https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/China But mention of Shanghai wasn't there back in January.

If I'm not mistaken, don't you usually include a call and response in your sermons? Has it been difficult to maintain the rhythm and passion of your messages without congregational feedback?

I called him a "green-blooded ..... Vulcan". It allows the mind to explore options.

For your consideration, "Mormon Church" has never been approved as a nickname for the Church of Jesus Christ, although "Mormon" has been embraced in the past as a nickname for its saints. https://askgramps.org/nickname-mormon-victory-adversary/

Not sure what you mean. Has that changed recently? Once a day. Usually.