Anddenex

So the best response in light of actually following prophetic counsel is to assume the doctors i listened to are plumbers, not competent in their field. Ok. Would love to see the article that gives 95% of the doctors all agree. Please provide the link.

Yes it does and is. What about this counsel, which is why the question was asked. "Vaccinations administered by competent medical professionals protect health and preserve life. Members of the Church are encouraged to safeguard themselves, their children, and their communities through vaccination. Ultimately, individuals are responsible to make their own decisions about vaccination. If members have concerns, they should counsel with competent medical professionals and also seek the guidance of the Holy Ghost." This second paragraph sounds like good counsel to me also which I'm following pertaining to vaccinations.

Which counsel are you referring too from the prophets? I'm following the counsel to seek out through mine own study, prayer, and the Spirit. I'm following the medical counsel from medical experts, not just the ones mainstream media wants us to follow. Do you assume my parents who were specifically told by their medical professionals not to take the vaccine, and who have prayed about it. And who taught their kids to wear a white shirt and tie aren't following counsel? Not so black and white as you make it especially in light of counsel already given.

Dang! I am surprised that our Google savior hasn't removed this video yet. It must be because it hasn't gone viral yet.

This is one I have to admit I still struggle with. I have a internal fight between the way I was raised (tradition) and what I think is best. I do like President Nelson's question on how to make the Sabbath a delight -- principle based. Maybe truly take it as a day of rest -- 24 hours of sleep minus 2 hours of church. 😉

My friend posted this video on his Facebook feed, and Facebook -- of course -- had it labeled as misleading context. I clicked on it to see what misleading information I would receive this time and it could only say that articles specify masks work. I was pretty sure I kept hearing the science was settled on "masks" and yet you have plenty of scientific articles -- about masks -- which are ignored. Its amazing when you begin to study for yourself what you actually see out there, and how easily to see who is misleading.

I was just listening to a doctor who mentioned that there are people who are still showing immunity with the Spanish Flu. If that is correct, as I don't have access to the reports they mentioned -- natural immunity seems to last longer. EDIT: Actually this is possibly two sources that highlight this: 1) https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/flu-survivors-still-immune-after-90-years 2) https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2008/08/researchers-find-long-lived-immunity-1918-pandemic-virus

Sadly @NeedleinA - this will probably be removed from YouTube. Most likely the studies he is using will probably disappear also.

We agree on this. I'm not anti-vaccination and I am also not pro-vaccination. I am solely against exploits to try to make something appear more successful than it really is. I have shared this before (please note I am not referencing you in this -- want to make that clear) regarding the intellectual dishonesty from our medical professionals. If there were more honesty and less specious explanations, less dictator issues, etc... we would already be moving past this. Let me clarify once more: 1) In the beginning with Covid we know the a lot of people (if not the majority) were dying of heart attacks, cancer, diabetes, or some form of pre-existing condition. All these deaths were counted as a Covid death. This resulted in fear mongering and inflated death reports from Covid. Now look at this from the Texas article with regards to the vaccinations deaths: "The agency said nearly 75% of the 43 vaccinated people who died were fighting a serious underlying condition, such as diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, cancer or chronic lung disease." Notice how they seek now to use "underlying conditions" as a way to say the vaccination is working, these people were dying anyway from a pre-existing condition. Where as in the beginning of Covid it was exactly the opposite. This is specious information coming from medical professionals. 2) Numbers can be manipulated to specify what an organization or entity wants them to mean. Thus my questions. How do they know that any of the vaccinated people are doing better because they are vaccinated? These vaccinated people could have survived anyway. If they would have survived anyway -- without a vaccination -- then it doesn't support the argument. Can you prove that these people who were vaccinated would have died if they weren't? If not, then there leaves a big hole in the argument for vaccination. 3) This is the type of assumption I have a hard time with, "COVID would probably take half or more, and kill a percentage of everyone else, more of the older, fewer of the younger." If we take the Spanish Flu as a example, it should have killed a heck of a lot more people then, but it didn't. With no vaccination. 4) I have shared this before, my whole family received the flu vaccine, except me, and I was the only one that didn't get the flu. When my family received the flu vaccine it was the worst flu case to go through my house. My wife was down for three days. My children were down for three days. I was down 0 days. Am I against my family receiving vaccines -- heavens no. It is their choice. Understand, I'm not arguing against the validity of vaccines. I'm arguing against supporting arguments. I'm all for people with high risk voluntarily receiving the vaccine. There are talks of forcing children to receive the vaccine who are nearly immune to the virus (if you are nearly immune the vaccine won't help, it is a placebo). This is where I argue against vaccines, especially when statistics which have major loop holes, are used to force something upon someone.

This is in part why I am always concerned when anyone starts throwing numbers without more information provided. If you look at New Jersey and the age groups who have received the vaccine the vaccinated in comparison to death rate is what Facebook fact checkers would call missing context. 1) The age groups that have shown to be more immune to the virus add up to 2,358,386 (more than half) of the vaccines received. This tells me the percentage is skewed and isn't accurate because you have age groups that is already showing that if they receive Covid they will survive anyway. 2) The death for unvaccinated individuals is reporting the number of deaths since Covid pandemic started, which we know many have died with pre-existing conditions. Once again skews the Covid death percentage provided because these people actually were dying of something else. 3) With over a year, humans have already shown to be resilient as time passes with a virus. The easiest example is the Spanish Flu. With no vaccine the rate of death decreased, and the Spanish Flu was much more severe to humans (of all ages and health) than Covid (there were no arguments of having pre-existing conditions with the Spanish Flu. It took the healthy and unhealthy equally according to what I have read about it.). So, how do these numbers reflect the natural immunity that builds within the human species? According to every thing I read and hear about the Spanish Flu should have never ceased with the way people talk about Covid. So, when we say only 50 died, is that a direct result of the vaccine, or is there more to it? I am going to say there is more to it then just being vaccinated. The Spanish Flu and the natural herd immunity seems to give evidence to this. Caveat. I was hoping to find the actual death statistics broken down by age groups for New Jersey. I couldn't find anything that would specify the deaths by age of the 26k given.

Can one say that there are no blessings missed out on when a priesthood holder is not in a home? No. If there wasn't anything to the sons of God receiving the priesthood then the Lord wouldn't command it. There must be something that is received, unseen/unknown, with the priesthood in the home presiding that otherwise is not there. Otherwise the priesthood is simply an ornament, and we know it isn't. Is the sole purpose of the priesthood authority purely just administering ordinances? No. Priesthood also hold the keys and responsibilities for administration and ministering duties. The Church organization and all that it encompasses is accomplished through the priesthood. Without the priesthood -- as you already know -- ordinances aren't valid so that is important. If there is no man in the home, is there really no priesthood in the home? Yes, as in their isn't a priesthood holder who holds the priesthood; however, the priesthood is also not the man. I find it important that the Lord tells us if we are sick to call the Elders, which then correlates with not having the priesthood -- one who holds the authority and has been ordained -- in the home. Priesthood "power" though can still be in the home. I have heard many times that in situations where a worthy priesthood holder is not present, the prayer of faith can have the same effect on healing the sick. This is accurate, but with caution a caveats (when the priesthood is not available and not around). I know of a lady who believed she could bless her children -- laying on of hands -- by her husband's priesthood. Actually give a blessing through her husband's priesthood/ordination. When we can call upon the priesthood body and choose not to we enter in the realm of pride, because the Lord himself has commanded us to call upon his Elders. The easiest example is a widower or a single mother. If a woman is in an area where the priesthood body is not available or around she can exercise faith in the priesthood and call upon the Lord. This is the Lord's grace and mercy through our faith. If this is true, what is the purpose of blessing the sick and afflicted if a priesthood blessing isn't necessary? Refer to answer #3, if there is no man in the home. In this case though "isn't necessary" isn't the correct term. The priesthood is necessary otherwise the sons of God wouldn't be commanded to receive the Oath and Covenant of the priesthood. If we are in a position where we can't, then the Lord is merciful. Very similar to an anointing for the sick and afflicted. The anointing requires two individuals, and that is the way it should be done. But if there is only one present, there is understanding that the one individual can move forward and do both. Does this mean because we can perform this blessing with one person that two isn't necessary. No. We still seek to have two. If the sole purpose of the authority of the priesthood is to administer ordinances for others to be obedient to, how do we look at blessings of comfort and counsel and blessing the sick and afflicted? It isn't the sole purpose of priesthood authority. There are many functions to the priesthood, one of which is presiding. The second part answered above already. What additional benefit does a blessing have that prayer does not? Is it just providing specific counsel from God? I think this is a great question, and I think this is one where our faith is required. We do not know, and we do not see, but we exercise faith in God's words and his commandments. There must be something -- yet to be known that is true -- as to why the priesthood is necessary for God's kingdom to run and to be on the earth. So in reality the greatest benefit is obedience to God. This is the way he commanded it. We are also informed that the "power of God" is manifest through his ordinances. So, this tells us there is some additional, some benefit, that otherwise would not be there if we simply prayed or did not have. My mind draws me back to this scripture, "For by the water ye keep the commandment; by the Spirit ye are justified, and by the blood ye are sanctified;" These three aren't possible without the priesthood -- as we are given and to the knowledge we currently have.

It is not uncommon either for a Caucasian, like me, to be 4% African American. My father's blood DNA test resulted in 92% European Caucasian and 8% African American. It's probably why I could jump.

So, that is a no then on providing a top ten of white males under 5'9" who can dunk with authority. Notice the topic of the OP -- NBA -- which is basketball. If you want to entertain the rabbit hole of genetics on all other aspects you will be entertaining that alone. If you want to continue to the discussion regarding the topic of the OP -- NBA -- basketball. We can continue further once you have shown me the video.

I don't mean to burst his bubble but it isn't just Africans from Africa. Look at the United States. How does this fit into his ideas?

He's six one and is only one dunker. We aren't speaking about elites from all races, but averages. If you can show me a top ten of white males under 5'9" dunking as in the video given I would be happy to view it. But here is one of the best dunkers in the world.

Just an example of genetics and hard work. If you can show me a counterpart video I would be interested in viewing it.

It makes sense to me having seen a lot of different types of players, and at the same size the average Black person I played against were always more athletic than their Caucasian counterparts. I am speaking averages not your elite few. The easiest example is jumping. On average if you take a Caucasian male who is 6'3" and a Black male who is 6'3" both playing the same sport. It is most likely the Caucasian is not able to dunk, or barely can dunk. The average Black male at 6'3" put the average Caucasian male to shame with jumping. Understand, at 5'9" in high school I was able to grab rim two hands, so I could jump, and at my high school we had a Black male who was 5'8" who could do a 360 and dunk. He was dunking in middle school (7th grade) at 5'5". I have never seen any other race have such an ability. Both. If they have the genetics but not the willingness to hone their craft they won't perform. But if they have the genetics and hone their craft they have better performance than their counterparts. Example is Shaq. If I am remembering correctly, it was someone who saw the talent in Shaq, which made him believe it was possible. Due to this he began to hone his skills for a big man. They dominate because probably 90% that play hockey are Caucasian. Look at the Olympics with running from America. We know we have Caucasian runners who compete but how many have gone to the Olympics? Why is the short speed race dominated by Black males? We know the Olympic runners are training, working hard, and doing all they can to compete, but the race that dominates are Black males. Here is a good example: At a 2010 meet, Lemaitre became the first white European or American to run 100 meters under 10 seconds. How many Black male runners have run the 100 meter in under 10 seconds? That is both training and genetics, or as Carl Lewis said -- which I partly agree with -- “The blacks, physically, are made better.” —Carl Lewis, nine-time Olympic gold medal winner in track and field. Professional body building champions is all genetics and hard work (and some steroids for some 😉 ). Genetics plays a role as to body makeup. What the chest looks like. How the chest develops and what shape. Biceps shape. Tricep shape. Back shape. My best friend in high school had one of the best tricep shapes I have ever seen. I was jealous. His genetic makeup, shape of muscles and tone, were better than mine. If we trained together, lifted weights together for competition. No matter how hard I would try I wouldn't beat him because of the genetics handed to him. His muscle definition and shape I wouldn't be able to compete against.

I am a basketball player. It is my sport. I played high school ball in California. Although I understand the notion you are bringing up with culture, having played against a plethora of players of all races my brothers who are black are much more genetically talented. Speaking on the average, not the top, they jump higher. They are quicker and harder to guard. There were outstanding Caucasian, Latino, and Asian players. They were few and far between. When I traveled in high school tournaments throughout California, it was rarely ever a Caucasian, Latino, or Asian player we were watching and astounded with playing. Again, there were some Caucasians, some Latinos, and some Asians that stood out. We had one in particularly everyone thought would go pro. He, as a freshmen, was averaging 20 to 30 points a game. He was 6'2" as a freshman and could jump. I never heard more about him after my mission. I have even looked him up to see what happened. As with many others his grades, he went to a lower division and because he was no longer pampered he dropped out. I spoke once with a friend whose best friend was a college recruiter. He said something like this, "If the grades and education of many of the black players were higher, we wouldn't see any other race playing football (except for your Polynesians and well QBs) in the Pros." He said you wouldn't believe the talent of these young black adults, but are rejected solely because they only know sports. So, in that @Fether makes a valid point about culture. They play ball everyday, all day. That was their aim -- to make the pros. But didn't realize the chance of making to the pros without college is low with football. As to European comparison, you have to realize the nations mentioned are predominantly white. If you look at their teams you don't see many people of any other race. In that sense, you will always have a standout in those countries who make it to the Olympics, and then at the Olympics they get seen. The problem in the US, is that the outstanding Caucasian player is seen against outstanding Black players, or other races, and on average the outstanding black player is usually a step ahead against the Caucasian player. If I had vision when I was younger, because I love basketball I would have moved to a Slovenian country, where mostly Caucasian, and then played basketball with them. I would have had a chance standing out against other players. At 5'9" though I would have had to work harder. Not many 5'9" Caucasians in pro basketball, but you do see some that are Black -- just an example.

I understand completely, and I wasn't just referring to Japanese (that was just the obvious example of reparations given). In the late 19th century the Chinese Exclusion Act was given. The first racist law regarding immigration. We know also there were Asian slaves in America. Not just one generation. We have records of Asian children being stolen from their homes, brought to America, and sold into slavery. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25118876?seq=2#metadata_info_tab_contents

Although I understand the point, the metaphor easily falls short with one question, "What was the length of the race"? If the length of the race were 100 meters, a 20 second head start would be impossible to catch up. If the length of the race were a mile, 20 second could be gradually caught up and the individual could win. As you have to take into account the strength of the runner. If the runner is a short distance runner, and the other is a long distance runner. A long distance runner can easily make up 20 seconds to a short distance runner, especially if the runner doesn't have any stamina. I mean I remember competing against kids who I could easily outrun in a short distance, but would beat me in a mile by a minute and a half. So giving me a 20 second head start would mean nothing to them as they would still beat me by a minute. Which is what we are seeing today. With all the assistance some races have, they are given a head start today -- the 20 seconds. And with some races they are actually given a 30 second head start over, and yet the one that has to wait 30 seconds are performing better than those with a 20 second head start. Why is that?

Reparations should only be for those who were living through the circumstance, not 4 generations or more afterwards who never ever faced, nor do they know what it was like to live in the conditions that are being discussed for reparations. For example, I believe reparations were given to the Japanese in Hawaii for the treatment they received. That is understandable. They were there. They were living through it. They lost things of value, monetary value. The young adult today talking about reparations for slavery is silly and uneducated. Just as it would be silly for a Japanese offspring trying to seek reparations for the Japanese treatment in Hawaii -- who didn't live through it -- didn't lose anything -- and today enjoys the freedoms America offers. Is it racist to only give select ethnic groups college scholarships? Yes and no. A citizen has every right to give to any scholarship and set the scholarship conditions. There is a popular scholarship site where you have Scandinavians giving scholarships only to individuals with a Scandinavian heritage. Is this right? Yes. You have scholarships that are only for Black, Latino, Irish, etc... students. I don't see anything wrong with someone handing money over to a private organization. This helps people. The gray area is our government. If the government identifies one group -- pertaining to race -- over another race in the same social economic status it should have a solid reason for it. Otherwise, it is indeed a racist, which it shouldn't be. I don't think it is wrong either if the government is looking to assist a particular nation/race in school studies in America, as long as it has a solid and good reason. Should we be giving more reparations to the Black and Latino communities? No. Should we give reparations to the Asian communities due to the treatment many of them received in the early years of the United States? No.

If I could handle coconut, I would love those Zingers. Sadly, my eating like and dislikes centers around texture, and coconut texture doesn't hit my palette with comfort. 😭

Zingers (vanilla), Mike n Ikes, Mountain Dew, Beef Jerky -- original flavor.

As long as we are quoting prophets and apostles: Franklin D Richards, "What, then is the purpose of life? To be proved, to grow, to develop in accordance with the principles of the gospel, and to prepare ourselves for the next estate. Each of us has the capacity to achieve worthwhile objectives, and we should never forget that we are actually spirit children of our Father in Heaven and that every person is given a gift by the Spirit of God (see D&C 46:11)." To quote Alma, "therefore this life became a probationary state; a time to prepare to meet God; a time to prepare for that endless state which has been spoken of by us, which is after the resurrection of the dead." To quote Abraham, "And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;" To quote Christ, "Therefore I would that ye should be perfect even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect." (Unable to be perfect like Christ and the Father without being tested) To quote Joseph Fielding Smith, "Though we may face trial, temptation, and distraction, let us not lose focus: the purpose of mortal life is to prepare for eternal life." To quote President N. Eldon Tanner, "Let us consider … the purpose of the creation of the earth. The scriptures make it clear that it was … to provide a place for the sons and daughters of God to dwell in mortality and prove themselves worthy, through keeping the commandments, to return to the presence of God from whence they came." And in order to be proven worthy a person must keep the first two great commandments, which are to love God with all our heart, might, mind, and strength. The second is to love our neighbor as ourselves. Without charity we are nothing. Without charity we will not find joy, true joy. So, if we really want to narrow the purpose of life to a single reason it is that we are here to be tested, to be proven, if we are coming unto Christ and becoming like him -- which can only be accomplished via love -- charity. Which all true disciples of Jesus Christ have. 😉

My father is high-risk, his medical professional told him and my mother not to take the vaccine despite him being high risk.