MrShorty

https://www.deseret.com/2024/1/9/24032002/latter-day-saint-leaders-hire-new-managing-director-for-church-communication#:~:text=Aaron Sherinian%2C a longtime global,Christ of Latter-day Saints&text=Aaron Sherinian is,Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I'm interested on the opinions of the choice of hire here.

Some time back, I read about how radioactive isotopes of gold could be used for various nefarious purposes such as "dirty" bombs. A couple of months ago, I got curious about the decay chains leading to regular gold (not a radioactive isotope). I don't know much about that, so I did what anyone would do and googled "decay chain gold" or something of the sort. I think I asked ChatGPT, too.
My investigation led to an amazing discovery: There are no radioactive decay chains that lead to the production of stable gold. There is in fact only one stable isotope of gold, 197Au. That's regular gold. Any other isotope of gold decays away quickly; the longest-lived radioactive gold isotope is 195Au, with a half-life of about six months. So if you had a coin made of 195Au (which would be super-dangerous and quickly kill you from radioactivity), in five years only 1/1000th of that coin would still be gold. Five years after that, there would be only a millionth of the original gold isotope left. Within one human lifetime, all of that "gold", down to the last atom, would simply go away. And none of it would ever transmute into regular, stable gold. Like leprechaun gold, it would be lethal and evanescent.
In fact, other than atom-by-atom transmutation of platinum or iridium into gold inside a nuclear reactor (and what a shameful waste of platinum or iridium that would be!), there is no other way of creating gold than how it is created in dying stars.
Gold is created in the heart of stars, and only there. All of the gold you have ever seen has been created this way. There is no substitute method, no shortcut, no clever way to get around that. To the dismay of the alchemist, you can't decay away some type of radioactive lead to make gold. Lead can never be gold. I trust the spiritual parallels are obvious, so I won't belabor the point.
So there's your Sunday thought. Gold is created only the heart of stars. Don't think you can get it some other way. You can't.

Update
He was baptised about an hour ago. I assisted with his confirmation. A new journey begins.

I cooked our bird till the stuffing was 140 deg F.  Then took it out and let it rest for 30 min before removal and carving.  Turned out great as always.  No one got sick.

The recommendation to cook the bird to 165 deg is a bit overkill.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carryover_cooking
I have a BS degree in Food Science and Nutrition from BYU.  It was the easiest path to medical school while focusing on athletics.
People need to understand contamination, pasteurization and carryover cooking to balance out the USDA’s recommendations vs flavor.
To prevent a single person from getting sick, assuming the greater population are idiots and contaminate their food.  The center (hypothetically the coldest part) of the bird must reach 165 deg F for 1 second to have a 100% kill rate.

The same one each year?

Merry Christmas to all!
I was just stuffing the "turkey" (actually a chicken) and my father came in and said he'd read in the paper "don't stuff your turkey" because of "contamination". Have you ever heard such rubbish? People have been stuffing their Christmas turkeys for years and years and I've never heard of any "post-Christmas turkey stuffing disease epidemic".  I've stuffed our turkey every year for years and no one in my house has ever died from it.
 I'd actually just finished the stuffing when my dad came in with the news, but much as I love him, I'm not going to unstuff the turkey just because some silly twonk who writes in the newspaper wants to make himself sound clever by saying "don't stuff your turkey or you'll die of malaria".
If we do die of malaria I shall stand corrected.
P.S. I have now unstuffed the chicken. My Dad was fretting.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/hymns/using-the-hymnbook?lang=eng&para=title8-p19#title8
Selecting Verses to Be Sung
You need not feel compelled to sing all the verses of a hymn unless the message is otherwise incomplete. However, do not routinely shorten a hymn by singing just the first one or two verses. Singing the verses printed below the music is encouraged.

A former bishop said it best. Paraphrasing, but at the end of the day we’ll be shocked who hasn’t achieved eternal glory-but we’ll be really shocked to see who has.  

I totally agree with you
 
I’m placing bets that within 25 years the right wing will leave the church over it’s “liberal” tendencies. We saw some of it happening during the pandemic when the church came out with their teachings on masks and vaccines. It was fascinating to me then, it’s fascinating to me now.
 
Those who scream at you to “Follow the prophet” don’t follow their own advice if the Prophet says something they disagree with.  

Mosiah 29:26 Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people. 27 And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.
Do you think this means a simple majority choosing iniquity is the deciding factor for God's judgement to be poured out? And what qualifies as "choosing iniquity"? In the political arena it can be difficult to differentiate between what is evil vs just bad policy. Some of the moral issues I think are more clear but I wouldn't necessarily label someone as evil just on those. Many supporters of these policies are otherwise decent people who do care about others. In the Book of Mormon destruction usually follows internal disruption, often when a threat against personal liberties is carried out. When evil people get power that almost always happens eventually. So maybe that's the tipping point?

You aren’t wrong. LDS beliefs are deeply misunderstood, especially in states with large Evangelical populations. To be fair, I think Catholic, Evangelical and Jewish beliefs are probably misunderstood in Provo, Idaho, etc.
It’s not an insult to Catholics, Evangelicals, LDS or anyone else. Generally speaking we all misunderstand religions we aren’t part of. 
 

With what shall I vacuum dear Henry, dear Henry?

Every month me (and another bloke called Alan) have to vacuum the church. I do the back area around the piano and the organ, and the nave (where most people sit) and Alan does the "holy end" - the vestry and the area around the altar. I guess it's similar to what you people call a "calling".
Anyway, the vacuum cleaner I use is "Henry":

I have no idea whether you have "Henry" in America but he is really popular here. He has a top that looks like a derby hat, with a long cord that pulls out and you wind a handle to get it back. And you drag him around to where the dirt is, and he sucks it up his long extended nose. If you pull him too fast he topples over and his "hat" comes off.
Anyway, I have seen Henry vacuum cleaners in B&Q for about £150. I have often thought of buying one and taking him straight to the rubbish tip and chucking him with all the other used appliances. That would wipe the smile off his smug little face, don't you think?

@zil2 You are correct that the creatio ex nihilo group has to grapple with God as the creator of evil, where those of us who don't subscribe to creatio ex nihilo have the luxury of being able to say that evil exists independent of God. But that is only part of the problem of evil. As it relates to the OP, there is also the problem of various ways that evil and suffering exist (sports injury, war, natural disaster, illness, accidents, etc.) that God (we usually believe) could intervene to prevent or alleviate, but He chooses not to intervene.

@zil2 You are correct that the creatio ex nihilo group has to grapple with God as the creator of evil, where those of us who don't subscribe to creatio ex nihilo have the luxury of being able to say that evil exists independent of God. But that is only part of the problem of evil. As it relates to the OP, there is also the problem of various ways that evil and suffering exist (sports injury, war, natural disaster, illness, accidents, etc.) that God (we usually believe) could intervene to prevent or alleviate, but He chooses not to intervene.

This is not the only explanation in scripture for suffering.  Unfortunately, they really aren't clearly marked out, so one has to just read and note them when they're found, and there are a lot of them - because there's a lot of suffering in scripture.

People Aren't Really This Stupid. Are They? They Can't Be. No, They're Just Faking It. But How Come The People Who Other People Think Are Smart Turn Out To Be The Stupidest? Are They Just Lying? Or Are They Really Stupid? Maybe There Is Something Called Spiritual Stupidity, And These Supposedly Smart People Are Really Just Spiritual Imbeciles. But That Doesn't Seem Too Likely, Does It? Does It? Hmmm. I Don't Know.)
Dearest Wormwood,
In your latest communication, you mention The Problem of Evil, but without any apparent understanding of the brilliance and cleverness of the argumentation. Really, Wormwood. I expect more from a promising nephew. This is a clear exercise in rhetoric, one you should be able to do in your sleep. Now pay attention, and let us discuss the Problem of Parental Love. Watch and learn.
If parents love their children, then they will always protect those children from evil. When capable of doing so, parents who love their children will never allow those children to experience evil. Loving parents will keep their beloved children free from the taint of evil, so will disallow any choice that leads toward evil. All parents allow their children to experience evil, in practice as well as in consequence. Therefore, no parents love their children. Do you see how easily this is done? How natural it sounds? The general form goes more or less as follows:
Introduce an implicit paradox of the "Can-God-Create-A-Rock-So-Big-That-He-Can't-Lift-It?" variety. But for heaven's sake, be subtle about it! E.g. "Can the works of an all-good God ever bring about evil ends?" can be hinted at, but never overtly stated, because it's a patently ridiculous proposition. Seriously, don't show your cards. Misdirection is your friend. If you do it right, it can even confuse you, so that you can more convincingly play the part of the virtuous truth-seeker. (Though as a journeyman devil, shame on you if you ever fall for your own tricks!) Try using poorly defined words, such as "omnipotent" and "omniscient". You will be stunned at just how easily you can mislead these gullible fools by throwing around God's omnipotence. "Could God save Satan? Of course he could! God can do ANYTHING!" You may not believe me, but trust me, nephew, it is often exactly that easy. Always remember: This is not about establishing truth. (As if.) This is about using words cleverly. Introduce framing parameters that are actually not solid parameters, but rather are implicit comparisons or metaphors, or even figurative usages. E.g. "God can do anything" is wonderful, because then you can state patently false and self-contradictory things, as shown above, and support it by saying, "Well, you said that God can do ANYTHING. We're just using your own conditions." Using the poorly or ambiguously defined words and the metaphorical framing parameters, assert a contradiction. If you have laid the groundwork properly, your opponent will likely not even recognize that you are blatantly shifting the goalposts. Conclude that your initial paradox cannot be resolved, and therefore that a foundational claim must therefore be false. Voilá! You win! Seem too blatant? That's just because you're naïve and can't see how expertly this can be done. If anyone complains, assert that you have used simple, elementary logic, and all they must do is point out your logical flaws. This will work in literally 99+% of cases, because the large majority of people aren't practiced at pointing out logical flaws, if indeed they can even identify them at all. They almost always will back down in intimidation.
In the rare case that someone actually dismantles what you have said or tries to point out your dishonesty in moving the goalposts, don't despair! Most listeners won't have followed the conversation closely; the large majority aren't actually interested in what is being said, just in the conclusions reached. Roll your eyes, sigh, make it clear that you are exercising your patience in what would normally be an insufferable situation, and say something that implies (but doesn't outright say) that your opponent is being obtuse, probably intentionally so. Something like, "Look, I have clearly pointed out the logical position. If you can dispute it, go ahead, but don't try to obfuscate the issue behind picky argumentation." (Which of course is exactly what YOU are doing; this makes your victory all the sweeter.) If you are a real expert, then you can sometimes even convince the dissident himself that he's wrong or has missed something. But you care only about the opinions of those witnessing the exchange; you don't care about the person arguing against you, except to destroy his credibility in the eyes of others.
Be clever and say the right thing, and you will win the vast majority of such exchanges. Some few you will inevitably lose; if you're in such a situation, simply point out some logical flaw (real or imagined—it doesn't really matter) in your opponent's argument and then change the subject, perhaps with a generous-sounding, "Look, I don't want to pick your words apart."
A very useful phrase in such situations is, "Let's just agree to disagree." It is truly amazing how often this little phrase will do the trick, rescuing a victory from the very jaws of defeat. Be sure to say it as if you're making a generous offer to move the conversation along, wherein you are willing to stop humiliating your opponent by just going to the next topic. If your opponent refuses to let it go, point this out in some way, so you can establish your own virtue and your opponent's lack of good faith. If he continues pressing and you can't escape his logic, simply refuse to continue the conversation. Do NOT attempt to address his concerns; at that point, you are unlikely to be able to deceive everyone, and You Never Want To Lose. So refuse to lose by refusing to continue the conversation.
If you do it right, this will look like you are the mature one who is unwilling to continue in a contentious debate. That's what you're after, Wormwood. Appearance is everything. Truth is what you manage to convince people it is.
Your voraciously affectionate uncle,
Screwtape

Agreed. A little epistemic humility seems wise in these cases.

My point is that most people believe that God created everything, everyone, everywhere, and everywhen.  That all time and existence and matter and everything other than God was created by God.  This means evil was created by God (whether directly or by creating that / those which would choose evil),  since nothing co-exists, or pre-exists God, nor comes into existence without God.
Joseph Smith taught that this is not correct.  All intelligent beings have always existed.  We are eternal, with no beginning and no end.  In other words, there is some part of us that God did not create.  Further, he taught that we are the same species as God and that God once existed as a mortal man.  If all that is true, then space (room in which to exist) is also co-eternal with God (unless one wants to argue that beings can exist without having space in which to exist).  I won't try to argue that clock-like time has always existed, but I think it's reasonable to believe that sequences of events have always existed, and therefore when has always existed. (How can you exist without existing for a duration?  Eternity itself is a duration, so "when" has always existed - otherwise, how could I be using the word "always"? )
Therefore, we have intelligences, space, and "when" that were not created.  Therefore, we do not have to believe that God created evil, or that he knowingly created beings who would choose evil, nor that there was something he didn't know (that some of us would choose evil), etc.  We can believe that evil (the option to go contrary to light and truth) has always been an option, just as intelligences, space, and when have always existed.  We can believe that he is helping intelligences to progress, if they so choose, and that if they choose evil, it is their choice, not his.  If he holds any blame, it is in not stopping them (but we believe agency is so important that God basically has to allow it, by his own choice and because it is the most right thing to do).
The "God created everything" crowd have to struggle with why God created evil (either directly or indirectly).  Those of us who believe what Joseph Smith taught know that God did not create evil and only allows his children to choose it because agency is critical to our eternal existence.  (And scripture teaches that when things get bad enough, God will step in and either guide his children away from the evil, or destroy those who have so thoroughly chosen evil that they don't need more time in mortality to make their choice.)

If you said you understood God correctly I’d be a little nervous. I’m not sure our human minds can comprehend what God truly is. 
 
Intellectually I agree with you. Most of my friends who are agnostic and deal with the problem of evil have usually struggled with great loss. It’s more a problem with emotions rather than intellect, which is totally understandable.   

I submit that it's a major problem because they do not understand God correctly.  Only when God is properly understood can the option of "evil" be properly understood.

Curious timing that this thread would come up now. I think I am correctly seeing that the OP is not completely serious, but I would note that the problem of evil has been a central part of my own research recently. Most commentators on the problem suggest that the problem of evil is the most common reason why people refuse to convert to Christianity (or theism more generally) or the most common reason they deconvert. I bumped against a bit of [Elder] C. S. Lewis's story and how the problem of evil was a major factor in his own resistance to conversion.
I understand that we can point out how silly it is to see a minor sports injury as proof positive that God doesn't exist, when there are much more important and significant evils in the world. It still seems like the problem of evil is still a major stumbling block for many people.

You aren’t alone my friend. A lot of us struggle with things like this. 

Why do those desperately wicked and rebellious souls, like Alma the Younger, who at first reject the gospel message but later receive it while still in the flesh, have a pathway open to obtain the celestial kingdom, while the not so not desperately wicked, who receive the gospel after death, can only hope to obtain a terrestrial glory? What’s so magical about death that a balanced application of mercy and justice no longer seems to apply after one’s mortal body is laid down the grave? If Alma had died during his exquisite spiritual suffering, before thinking to cry out to the Savior for mercy, would he have only been able to obtain a terrestrial glory as well? If so, why? It seems terribly unfair that an untimely and/or accidental death, something that one often has no control over, could mightily change one’s spiritual destiny forever.