Anddenex

I think it was pretty obvious the numbers I was using with regards to the article, which showcased 42,000 vaccinations given in that region with 32 deaths. As with any statistic it all depends on the numbers used. I'm no mathematician either, but I'm sure if you take the percentage of the numbers from the article (given again for your benefit) I think you will come up with the same percentage from that "pool" of people. Also notice the general statement -- "Let's say this remains static..." Using, once again, the pool of 32 out of 42,000, which again should have been obvious. I understood there have been more vaccines. Where did you get your number of 35 deaths? I hope you weren't using 35 for 32 for your 71.3 million statistic. Remember that 32 given was from that report of 42,000 vaccines. Surely, since you gave that number 35 you can show the report that specifies 35 deaths out of 71.3 M vaccinations for your math? EDIT: and my numbers are off by one it was 33 not 32 out of 42,000. I'm pretty sure Covid and the vaccine have about the same risk to my life, so not to worried either way. And the point of my message above wasn't the statistic, which obviously was using a pool of people from the article with a higher death possibility than the one you have given. It was this: "This is why I place very little trust in the arm of flesh. Underlying conditions were seen as Covid deaths (all last year), but now with the vaccine they are giving excuses it isn't the vaccine, they had underlying conditions. It would be nice if things were simply reported accurately, rather than spewing the fear one way, while denying it the other way."

The concept of a "unified" nation will only be accomplished when the denizens of the nation care more about truth and morality, and less about money and power. When the citizens do not, then you have compromise on items that should never be compromised. The easiest examples since the origination of the American Constitution would be slavery and abortion. In the United States' founding documents we proclaim that all men/women are created equal, and yet the founders compromised on slavery. In the United States' founding documents we all have the right to the pursuit of happiness, unless you are a child within the womb. Thus, compromise results from individuals who want to push a narrative/agenda, rather than focusing on truth and morality. There shouldn't be any budge against truth and morality, but as we have seen, people who care more about narrative/agenda, power, and money they will push and push until they get their way. We should peacefully present and fight for (uh oh, I used the word "fight" -- I might be starting/inciting a riot on ThirdHour) true God given rights. Say next month, congress votes in a bill that makes abortion legal at all points, free, and provides $5000 in “emotional/physical recovery” for everyone who goes through it. What would the appropriate “unified” nation response for those who disagree? Work through the avenues that have already been given in our founding documents. We are to peacefully act and fight for (there is that word again -- fight) "rights" that are given to all. If we have done all we can, then we leave it in God's hands. We would address our senators with our concerns (i.e. the sanctity of life, and where is this $5000 coming from). If we act like the rioters (BLM and Capitol) we are no longer a "unified" but a destructive front. Would it be inappropriate under a “unified” nation for a republican owned senate and presidency to push through a bill that allows all Americans over the age of 21 to get a free handgun following an in-depth background check and firearm safety course? Yes, it would be inappropriate under our form of government. It isn't the governments responsibility to provide guns for the people. It is only the responsibility of the government (our government) to protect our rights. Once again, how would the government pay for this? Government should ensure its denizens are able to protect themselves. Or is it the responsibility of a “unified” nation’s elected leaders to acknowledge that half the nation disagrees with a certain change and negotiate a middle ground despite the party’s ability to push through whatever they want?  No, it is the responsibility of the government to protect and honor the rights bestowed upon us by our creator, and through the Republic established. If we are negotiating a middle ground (upon rights) we are already showing to have a lack of unity. If a government is pushing agenda and power they aren't a unified front, but they are establishing dictatorships. Easiest example of pushing a narrative/agenda is "gender terms." This already shows a lack of a unified front. Any stem away from truth and morality is evidence of a lack of unity -- resulting from the desire for power. Middle ground should be sought after within different avenues. Easiest example is dealing with the poor and homeless in our society. These individuals also have the right to pursue happiness. How might the government best help? Does our government seek out thoughts and opinions from its citizens and citizens who own profitable businesses? Plans will be discussed, which some will agree with and some won't. In light of the government we are blessed with, options should be provided that do not destroy that government. In this case, compromise will probably need to happen.

This article is the type of backwards talk that has been inconsistent since the beginning of Covid. In this article, it is interesting how they minimize the death correlated with the vaccine with "underlying conditions" but since last year they have been reporting "underlying conditions" and Covid as -- Covid is the worst virus ever. Imagine if they treated these death correlated with the vaccine as they have treated other deaths with underlying conditions? I mean, if the article (once read a while back) was correct they applied a Covid death of a man who was killed in a motorcycle accident. Also, if you calculate 32 out of 42000 death that gives you 0.00076% chance of dying from the vaccine (correlation). In Utah we have a population of 3.2 million, with about 1600 deaths total in roughly a year now. The total death percentage and likelihood of death from Covid is 0.0005%. That's not very comforting. Let's say this remains static, and everyone in the world decided to give in and obtain the vaccine. This potential deaths would lead us to 5,600,000 deaths correlated with the vaccine. More than what has died in the first year from Covid. Just using the same principle that started with Covid in the beginning of this pandemic. At first I heard it had a 10% death rate. If 100 people were found with Covid 10 would die. Then my brother was all about all the research and family texts of 4-5% (fear, run, scare). Now, with actual statistics it is much, much lower. Should we treat these correlated deaths with the vaccine as they treated Covid correlated deaths in the beginning? This is why I place very little trust in the arm of flesh. Underlying conditions were seen as Covid deaths (all last year), but now with the vaccine they are giving excuses it isn't the vaccine, they had underlying conditions. It would be nice if things were simply reported accurately, rather than spewing the fear one way, while denying it the other way.

The first question is odd. The second question is already answered in the quote. Read the quote again and you will probably have your answer to both questions through a humble and sincere read of what he said.

The easiest way to control a generation is by what they are educated with, and depending on how things are going will depend if we pull our younger children out of public education. The prolific "Media Bias" sheet/doc that people constantly show is biased (irony) also. The easiest example is CNN, which is hyper-left media. Politico is also hyper-left, and others are showing to be hyper-left. This sheet isn't convincing, but funneling people to sources, by which you hear on Facebook people say, "Unless you can show me an "unbiased" source like I have provided I won't accept it." The key word "unbiased" as-if there is any such source. Forbes is skewing left from the articles I have read, not the middle. Another example is look to how these media outlets took to Trump and Russia and how they handled Biden and China. Some say its a good place to start, but I don't think something that is already incorrect as a good place to start, but definitely an easy way to force "opinion" as fact, because "these" are the only sources that are fair or minimal bias. I put very little weight in documents like these.

You and I agree. There isn't anything wrong with the metaphor unless someone is wanting to stir the pot -- so to speak. It is a great metaphor.

Here is the thought Elder Renlund provided that is irritating "thought leaders" and those that have succumbed to these thoughts leaders: The metaphor is a brilliant metaphor relating sickness (virus) to spiritual sickness, and how we should avoid anything in our lives that might threaten the eternal reward of our family. Seems to be a very appropriate analogy in light of scripture. And yet, this section is full of people irritated because -- the guilty take a truth to be hard. My favorite comment is this, "I doubt that this was an inspired comment and hope you’ll reconsider what a damaging impact this sort of stigmatizing and divisive sentiment has to our congregations." First, it's funny that someone thinks they are able to say what is inspired and isn't when it was "personal" revelation to Elder Renlund, which he is sharing. The Lord doesn't work horizontally with revelation or inspiration, so the pride involved in this sentiment is even more sad. Truth only impacts a congregation harmfully if the congregation is prideful and doesn't want to accept truth. It really becomes tiring reading comments from people who want to twist words an apostle or prophet will say to further their justification for their decisions.

Yes and no. Think of the first time the three witnesses were praying and how one individual was preventing the experience -- for them all -- to happen. And yet, no, because God doesn't withhold revelation from me due to another person's choices. Think about the temple prayer and one statement in the prayer regarding "feelings."

I updated my response to what was actually being said, "ease of burden," not an easy path. My post doesn't mention an easy path.

I would think one of the main blessings of collective righteousness is more revelation from the prophet. When we have lived, as a group, the principles that are currently revealed we can then receive further light and knowledge. If the Church, all its members, had lived a righteous life where do you think the Church would be today? How many more temples would we have? How many more members of the church would we have? How would it be to live in a place where all truly love each other? I think that would be also one of the greatest blessings. Imagine how easy ward callings, especially ministering, would be if all were living the commandments as a group. Talk about an ease of burden on the bishop, stake president, and ward leaders would feel.

Yes, and despite the video evidence of people at the Capitol saying, "No Antifa," to a guy who was trying to break the windows, and Trump supporters stopping him. Antifa wasn't there. But Politifact has a new article already on John Sullivan telling everybody they were still correct.

With censorship and what these organizations also use to to verify you need to be censored. How do you know these days you are about to be manipulated? Answer: This has been verified by independent fact checkers. Answer 2: Do you have any "unbiased" sources for evidence like I have shown?

Twitter's Gestapo (a.k.a Community guidelines).

Never thought I would say this, but @Just_A_Guy is now officially part of the problem not the solution. And I looked up to you! 🤪 😜 Beware of the power of the Darkside JAG.

Parler, from the last video I watched mentioned they were looking to be up in the next week or so. I will have to look at Dissenter. I was wondering what is a good one to replace YouTube. I will have to look at those.

I think it is simply means that the Lord through Elijah would reveal the binding powers of the priesthood to Joseph. It could be similarly said, "Behold I will reveal unto you the Priesthood, by the hand of John the Baptist...." Simply meaning that through John the Aaronic Priesthood would be revealed and given upon this earth at that time.

I was just about to post the same thing.

Attitude and Enmity.

I wonder what Facebook, Google, Apple, Twitter think upon these statements (I don't really wonder, we already know), which as far as I can tell are worse than Trumps:

Newest censorship on YouTube, and this is just showing news, the actual image replaced with a Trump image. Think it through.

It's because we live in a double standard world. It is OK for BLM, Antifa, Democratic platform to encourage, entice, promote (even fit the bill for release of criminals), and use Facebook, Google, Apple, and other outlets for their violence. We live in a very hypocritical society. If all things were issued fairly, no one would be having a complaint. If Facebook, Apple, Google, etc...called out the violence that happened for 7 months they might have a leg to stand on. But no, they encouraged it, supported it, and did nothing against those who enticed it. BLM an known marxist organization, that initiated and assisted with violence still have a Twitter account. Go figure -- shocker -- not.

I was seeing pictures of this but wasn't sure if it was accurate. Crazy times!

I'm not sure if this fits the question, but was the first thing that entered my mind -- the death of the five year-old (point blank with a gun) that you only heard about from other friends. Major media outlets pushed it aside. It wasn't supporting the narrative.

You know, you might be right. Desecration might have been the word I was going for. They are close phonetically (yes, yes, I know not perfectly). The more I think about what I was saying desecration is probably the word I was meaning to use.

Yes, it depends on how one is using the term discretion. In this sentence it is an individual act against divine nature and eternal destiny. This sums up the use of the term discretion nicely -- I think: Wiki Discretion can be both positive and negative. An easy example is Satan's discretion (his freedom to act or to be acted upon) regarding the Father's plan.