Colirio

Are we sure that a “year,” a translation of terminology having been passed down from the time of Moses or earlier, accurately reflects the time it took for this earth to revolve around the sun or could it reflect some other measurement of time? For instance, some other cultures have used agriculturally based calendar systems. And if that is accurate, are we sure that their systems of counting and math has been taken into account on this case? It just seems to me that there has been a lot of time that has passed, a lot of units of measurements that have changed over that time, and several translations of languages have occurred of this document before it arrived to us in our modern language with our modern units of measurement. Then, there is the whole “age of a man” thing in other scriptures: 3 Nephi 28:2 And they all spake, save it were three, saying: We desire that after we have lived unto the age of man, that our ministry, wherein thou hast called us, may have an end, that we may speedily come unto thee in thy kingdom. 3 And he said unto them: Blessed are ye because ye desired this thing of me; therefore, after that ye are seventy and two years old ye shall come unto me in my kingdom; and with me ye shall find rest. D&C 63:50 And he that liveth when the Lord shall come, and hath kept the faith, blessed is he; nevertheless, it is appointed to him to die at the age of man. 51 Wherefore, children shall grow up until they become old; old men shall die; but they shall not sleep in the dust, but they shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye. Isaiah 65:20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.

If you think that is awkward, just read through this little article and try not to cringe: The Improvement Era - April 1933

As someone who has traveled and attended sacrament meetings in many different places, I have found it to be less of a geographic cultural focus as much as a “local church culture thing.” There have been wards that focused on such things as kneeling on both knees, priesthood holders must wear white shirts and ties, holding one hand behind the back while passing the sacrament tray, etc. Fortunately, the new handbook helps clarify the essentials and discourages certain traditions. In my own opinion, I find some “church culture” traditions somewhat pharisaical, but understand that they are probably well meaning in trying to maintain a reverent atmosphere for such a sacred ordinance. If you really want a throwback, research how administering the sacrament used to have the priesthood holder raise his arm to the square or even both arms to the square.

From the Handbook: 18.9.4 Instructions - 4. After the hymn, the person blessing the bread kneels and says the sacrament prayer for the bread (see Doctrine and Covenants 20:77). That being said, in regards to the main topic, I find nowhere does it state that kneeling must be done on both knees as opposed to one knee. Certainly the dictionary doesn’t make the distinction: kneel /nēl/ verb be in or assume a position in which the body is supported by a knee or the knees, as when praying or showing submission. Likewise, arrangements can and should be made for special circumstances by the presiding authority, in this case the branch president, as to what is acceptable.

Same here! To be fair, they all have lived in the US most of their lives.... I do tend to wonder how big a part gun control will play in the upcoming US elections.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/01/canada-assault-weapons-ban-trudeau-nova-scotia-shooting From the article- “Canada has banned assault-style weapons following the murder of 22 people in the worst mass shooting in the country’s history, Justin Trudeau announced on Friday. “These weapons were designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to kill the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time. There is no use and no place for such weapons in Canada,” said the prime minister. “Effective immediately, it is no longer permitted to buy, sell, transport, import or use military-grade assault weapons in this country.”” Also from the article - ““Justin Trudeau is using the current pandemic and the immediate emotion of the horrific attack in Nova Scotia to push the Liberals’ ideological agenda to make major firearms policy changes,” said the Conservative leader, Andrew Scheer, following Trudeau’s comments. “Taking firearms away from law-abiding citizens does nothing to stop dangerous criminals who obtain their guns illegally.”“ This quote at the end of the article is what I found truly fascinating - “An “overwhelming majority” majority of Canadians – nearly four out of five people – support the ban, according to a poll from the Angus Reid Institute, released Friday.“

I agree that we are far from the level of tyranny of other nations. I’m not sure that I have seen anyone claim otherwise; on these forums, at least. I realize you probably already recognize this, but just because things could be worse doesn’t mean that people are left without reason for complaint. Just because @Vort isn’t punching your nose doesn’t mean that you can’t complain about him spitting on you.

I agree with you as a general rule. And in an effort to find common ground with others, I have found that most people probably believe the same way. And I guess that would be their main point. If they feel that their complaints fall on deaf government ears, and that their appeals to the government for redress of wrongs committed by that government goes nowhere, they justifiably could refer to the system as tyrannical. They would see it as a system that falsely claims to have redress of grievances.

So, to summarize, if there is a working system for the redress of grievances, then it’s not tyranny? I would agree with that assessment if so. So then, in your opinion, if the system fails to give appropriate redress, would it be considered tyranny?

I definitely agree that those authoritarian regimes are textbook tyranny under definition 1. We are very blessed by God and through the sacrifices of our ancestors to not be currently under governing systems. I was just curious as to where the line would be drawn to define number 2.

Interesting. Out of curiosity, what about in the case presented in the other thread where the city stated that there had been overreach by the police officers involved? Would overreach meet the criteria of the definition in your opinion? (Just to be clear, I’m genuinely curious and it trying to prove a point.)

tyr·an·ny /ˈtirənē/ noun 1. a nation under cruel and oppressive government. 2. cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control. 3. rule by one who has absolute power without legal right. Do you think that any of the cases presented could meet definition #2 as an unreasonable use of power?

I’m just saying that if restrictions against travel and outdoor location activities had been less strict during the quarantine, we might have had more people out in the sunlight.... 🧗‍♂️ 🏄‍♀️ 🚵‍♂️ 🏇 🤾‍♀️ 🏊‍♂️ 🌞 Just sayin’.

Who else is supposed to stay behind and change the diapers?!? 💩 🤮

I think I understand where you are coming from, MG. We all have to choose which battles we are going to fight and where we draw our line in the sand. It’s a matter of weighing the cost of the battle versus the rewards we hope to gain. I would also say that sometimes we are asked to make heavy sacrifices based on the light and knowledge we have received from God. We have hope that those sacrifices will be rewarded after this life and that they will be worth the cost of our battles. I can only assume this is why he refused to bake the cake. If so, I personally believe that he will be rewarded for his sacrifices made because of the faith he has in his God.

Oh, I remember. What I don’t remember is Tipper Gore ever being considered part of the “right.” Religious? 🤔 Sure. Why not? Right? 🤨 That being said, having grown up in the Bible Belt, I have witnessed all manner of outlandish claims and boycotts. My favorite one was when everyone was boycotting Tide (yes, the laundry detergent) because a percentage of their profits went to “support devil worshipping.” I am not making that up. Being a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints pretty much made me an outcast from day one.

Wait... Tipper Gore is part of the religious right?

Greatest. Response. Ever.

Seriously. Just having to fill out the paperwork for the arrest would have irritated me. IF she was hoping to actually get the law changed, her fight would have been at city hall, not with some police officer at a park who has no ability to change the legality of anything. Reading the story makes me think she got the 15 minutes of fame she was hoping for.

I think you give too much credit already...

I really should follow this example more often.

I don’t agree with this sentiment. I can agree that it is often overused in efforts to deride those with dissenting opinions on all manner of subjects. However, the fact is that he really existed, those things really occurred, and it is imperative that we are able to remember them in order to not repeat the same mistakes. (Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.) As such, discussions should occur and comparisons should be made in the light of truth and for greater understanding. So, while it is mostly used as a dismissive tactic to add an emotionally responsive impact to a person’s argument, there is validity when used properly. Besides, you know who else wants us to quit making comparisons to Hitler? Hitler.

I really just wanted this to be said again.

It would be incredibly helpful in the future if you would copy a paste a summary from the story so that we don’t have to generate more traffic for these sites.

My grandparents had a magnifying glass in their library and next to their nightstands. They would have the lamp on as they fell asleep with the book in one hand and the magnifying glass in the other. The entirety of the world’s libraries in my hand at night automatically dims its backlight so as not to disturb my wife while she sleeps. I consider it a chore to set my phone on its wireless charger when my eyelids get too heavy.