Anddenex

I love the simplicity of this teaching and assertion. The Bible and the Book of Mormon are given by the same author -- Jesus Christ. How true? Very true. It's hole point is to witness against believing in one while denying the other. It would be the same if the Lord said (providing an example of two prophets). I have sent Joseph Smith that you may believe in Peter. And if you believe Peter then you will believe in Joseph Smith. Its highlights the irony of accepting a portion of God's words while denying the other portion. This will also be true when other scripture is revealed (and other scripture that has been revealed). We now can say the same thing with the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price (with a caveat adding: they are meant to bring a person to Christ). If we believe in the Bible (words of Christ), then we will also believe in other words of Christ (the Book of Mormon). And if we accept the Book of Mormon and the Bible, then we will accept the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. Our agency isn't removed when truth is given or an invitation is given. This scripture all the more highlights how agency is the most important principle/doctrine in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I'm waiting for the two prophets as @pam mentioned. It is the only sign that tells me I have three days to repent of all my sins. I have shared I would never fast again 48 hours but this one I might fast 48 hours because I'm going through (and repenting of) my naughty list. 😜

I'm more inclined to believe, accept, and have faith in the "general" understanding that afflictions are provided so that God and his Son, Jesus Christ are glorified. I love this example with the blind man and the apostle's question to the Lord. There are a lot of lessons wrapped in one verse. I'm more inclined to accept the general idea that afflictions will result due to having mortal bodies. As a result of having mortal bodies, the possibilities of mutations, that some of us would be born blind, deaf, lame, etc... I can't see any individual saying and agreeing with the Lord, "Yes, when I'm 3 years old I agree, and want to be diagnosed with cancer, and then die at age 6." We can hypothesis all the unfortunate scenarios and horrendous scenarios in this life. Tyrants is another good example. "Yes, I want to and agree to becoming a tyrant. I accept and agree to that I will raise an army, create mass murder, and then end my own life." What person, who would have been trained and tutored by a God think this would be OK and agree to it. I'm more inclined, to see God's foreknowledge, as a way in providing a means -- to escape -- and a way out if we use our agency wisely. I'm more inclined to accept that God didn't make the person blind, but that the plan provided a mortal weak body which could result (and does result) in mutations. Those mutations -- in general -- are a means to glorify God and would glorify God through miracles. Very similar to what happened on my mission. I don't believe there was some predestined result in the man who was healed, but I do believe our mortal bodies created an opportunity for God to be glorified in him and through his priesthood. Just as we all have the agency, every circumstance can be an opportunity to glorify God or to reject him. I am fond of Nephi's words, "nevertheless, the Lord did suffer it that he might show forth his power, unto the fulfilling of his word which he had spoken concerning the wicked." The Lord suffers many forms of afflictions so that his power can be shown forth such that he might be glorified, and in many cases his promises fulfilled.

The stake president should have left it at the first sentence, "The Church of Jesus Christ did not sanction...these protests." The stake president though doesn't speak for the Church, so adding "support" was his own words. Members have the individual right to "peaceful" protest and it appears they peacefully protested. An act like this would not fall under church discipline for the stake president; however, if the stake president started organizing such events himself then this could easily be something that could lead to action from Church leaders. An act like this would not fall under church discipline either for the members. If the stake president does, then I would hope the leaders above him would then bring him in also for an act of unrighteous dominion. The Church's position is clear, we can love people while not condoning sin; however, it is unfortunate to see how many members condone sin while loving the sinner. We can protest events, ideas, etc... while still being polite and loving. Elder Bednar mentioned clearly, in light of the actions with Covid, that we should never allow church attendance/worship to be less than buying/purchasing gas. That can only be done/accomplished with peaceful protests against actions that are unconstitutional or immoral/perversions.

Secrets is synonymous with mysteries with this quote, "How unsearchable are the depths of the mysteries of him; and it is impossible that man should find out all his ways. And no man knoweth of his ways save it be revealed unto him; wherefore, brethren, despise not the revelations of God." We can see evidence also from the Book of Mormon that "secrets" (mysteries) are supposed to be revealed at specific times and by specific people according to the will of God. This does not mean we can't know of the mysteries ourselves, just as prophets have been constrained not to write what they know. If we aren't the prophet, we do not have permission to reveal anything that has not yet been revealed. If we do not keep the mysteries secret, then does God have any good reason to share more? What do we do when we know someone can't keep a secret? Some people will mock, pearls before swine, truths also until it is revealed by the prophet, and even when revealed it is still hard for some and rejected even by the elect. Polygamy is a perfect example of this.

Looks like Woverine took the jab and a couple of the boosters https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cnu4jLWhaVx/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

My vocation is Software Quality Engineering (SDET). I was having an issue with a plugin for testing. I placed the example in ChatGPT and the clear definition it provided allowed me to create an automated test I had been trying to perform. This seems to be pretty good tool, and as with any tool it can be used inappropriately. I know here at our high school kids are using ChatGPT to write essays. They aren't doing any research themselves. They are simply asking the question, and then they copy and paste. This is pretty cool though.

Thank you. And that is my belief also. What is wrong with questions? Really nothing is wrong with questions, except since 2020 asking questions was a bad thing! If you asked correct and important questions, showing other sources of remedy -- silenced. But that is why we are where we are today and this question even surfaces -- "Do we trust "Philosophers of Biology" to judge why a pre-pubescent girl should get a hysterectomy and a double mastectomy when she shows signs she likes playing with trucks more than dolls? " One thing for sure that I'm seeing is the fulfillment of prophecy regarding the nature of humankind before the second coming. I used to wonder Carborendum, how a civilization could become like Sodom and Gomorrah? I don't ask this question anymore, I now know the answer.

Having zero respect for someone's beliefs isn't the issue here. The issue is the logical fallacy of a sweeping generalization. If your good with "making things up" in order to bolster your viewpoint about anti-vaxxers that is your prerogative. People can disrespect other points of view without making up things to bolster their viewpoint. You don't like "anti-vaxxers" that's fine, no skin off anyone's back. When you knowingly iterate untruths with a sweeping generalizations that isn't on the anti-vaxxer -- that is on you. Vaccines do save lives, they also take lives. If we want to be good with sweeping generalizations, I could easily say all promoters of vaccines are murderers as they don't care about the "few" that do have bad reactions to vaccines that can kill them if not treated. Your attitude and sweeping generalization is why my niece almost died from the vaccine. After the vaccine she was majorly sick. She went to see her doctors who blew her off because it COULDN'T BE the vaccine. She was becoming sick enough my brother flew her home, and got her checked right away. The doctors there, who actually didn't fall under these sweeping generalization of "vaccines NEVER cause harm" immediately took her in, knew she had a bad reaction from the vaccine, and gave her the medicine necessary to help her. If she stayed here, with the ignorant moronic doctors, she may have died or had severe after affects until the ignorant moronic doctors finally said something isn't right with the vaccine! So, I'm good with anybody not respecting views. All good there. Making up things to bolster our viewpoints and to brag about it just seems a little off -- especially coming from someone who constantly says don't judge, be loving, and is always seeking to show compassion -- unless your an anti-vaxxer -- then all gloves are off and we can make up whatever we want to feel better about our position.

Your sweeping generalization are always amazing to me when it comes to "anti-vaxxers." The majority of anti-vaxxers I know use the iron lung as an example to not trust "scientists" and medical practitioners who say they have a cure. In that light, your general sweep of the anti-vax crowd is incapable of understanding that seems to be a lie, which bring irony seeing that you call out "lies", or something a person will "make up" to continue in their erroneous belief. Something you seem to be doing here, making something up.

We all know Biden's brain is suffering from logical thinking, and if not a hoax then this statement from Biden is even worse. Why shoot with "deadly" force? Every shot from a gun is "deadly" force (if loaded with real ammo). An officer shoots to stop a threat -- typically. They aim for center mass because that is the biggest target, and more likely to successfully stop a threat. I remember a time back where officers used "rubber" bullets to stop threats -- looters. Then I kept seeing articles from the woke left that that is wrong and officers shouldn't be able to use rubber bullets because of the damage they do. Lol. These are shots that aren't "deadly" force but they hurt like hell, and for good reason (and the woke still complain!). Spray rubber bullets into a mob/looters every time, it will help quell the criminals. Blame the cops when they shoot real or rubber bullets! The woke left doesn't care about law and order, they only care about themselves, which is why these discussions come up. Let us loot, rob, steal, without injury! Its the cops fault I was breaking and entering and resisting arrest!

This is one of those decisions that "infringes" on the constitution, the 2nd amendment. This isn't a decision from someone who love's the constitution. You don't have to ban a gun, you just simply have to ban an accessory and you can make millions criminals.

I'm similar to @mirkwood's first statement. I'm concerned for those who have been affected by the vaccine and their families; however, I'm also grateful for those who have benefited from it. I had Covid, lasted two days, third day the symptoms went away except for a dry cough (which lasted about two weeks). Strep throat was more serious to me than Covid. Two items though with Covid for myself that were accurate: 1) How quickly I got tired (which first made me think to get checked), and 2) a lower back pain that went away the same time Covid symptoms were gone. The repercussions that are still in affect from the unnecessary lock downs are unfortunate. I'm struggling to understand how some families are even getting by in light of knowing what I make, and that we are getting by. The denial of inflation and watching gas prices sore, eggs sore, and other items sore in price is truly unfortunate. I can't imagine how financial would be right now if I was making what I was at the beginning of Covid vs. now, so knowing families in that situation I keep thinking how are they making it by each month. Sometime I wonder if somehow money seems to multiply when I made less because it doesn't seem like our situation has changed much as to what we can afford. We are actually stopping purchases that we previously did. I'm hoping the economists I read in the beginning aren't accurate regarding the stop of supplies, and how it will affect some countries by which some economists said we would see in the millions those starving. Having fasted for 48 and knowing the pain I was in, I would rather die of Covid or some other disease than starvation. I hope, this prediction is as false as Atheist's claim there is no God. 😉 Overall, I think we begin to see ourselves more clearly. How we handle stress. How we handle compassion. The "laugh" from both sides when someone died of Covid who wasn't vaxxed, or someone who did reminded of the Lord's prophecy of the last days that the heart (love) of men/women will wax cold. I find myself to be less hopeful, and at times even more hopeful. I find myself more patient in some areas in my life and more angry at others.

Thank you. Could you provide a link for us to read regarding this find. My quick search didn't pull anything up.

Thank you for that clarification. That is what I thought, it seemed a smaller county, but then came across an article specifying that a county could change the election. Then I was confused.

I'm not sure I would put an actual percentage to it; however, I would agree that often when things don't go the way we anticipate it is easy to say conspiracy because of the cognitive dissonance we are experiencing -- at this moment. What I like to ask myself is, if the roles were reversed would the same decision have been made? You previously mentioned Al Gore, and what I find interesting here is that a recount occurred (or am I reading and remembering things incorrectly?). In this case, if votes were recounted that provides a security and enables confidence to be maintained to a degree because an action took place to review it. When I begin hearing a political party start off before elections saying, "right-wing extremists already have a plan to literally steal the next presidential election." Think about this statement critically? It comes right after a fuliginous presidential win, by whom also said we should respect the results of the elections without complaint. Another item to let sink in. This is called doublespeak. There are no conspiracies! There is though "a plan" (a conspiracy) to take the election by force. We should respect the election results. The atmosphere has been set for 2024 by a dominant political opponent. If we do not win, the plan succeeded and we need to fight by what means we have, but if we do win then "they" (our opponents) need to respect the win, but not us if we lose. This is the type of language that are signs. I'm talking even from the Republican side also. I started this thread to understand more of what happened in this county, and from some outlets they are saying this could be a county that could change the outcome (that I'm not wholely sure because to much misinformation on the internet). So, I'm trying to understand this more. If the Republican judge (as from what I read) is truly delaying just to delay then he needs to be held accountable. If he is delaying due to the courts, then I have no problem with it, and the litigation and threat against him is a problem. That is more what I'm trying to understand here.

Says every government that has fallen before it fell. History repeats itself, and every strong nation that has fallen has fallen from conspiracies denizens' and politicians said did not exist. As I have shared here before, I'm pretty sure from history Ceasar was told there was no conspiracy to dethrone him until he was stabbed in the back. But isn't that the thing about conspiracies, they are easily hidden until its too late. All it takes is for people to continue to deny the signs until it is too late also. Is there a conspiracy here? Could be, just as there could not be. Is it interesting to see how in two cases now, potentially more, where a candidate doesn't debate, doesn't do anything to promote, and yet somehow gets more votes than someone who has more influence? Could it all be coincidence, sure, any intelligent mind will be open to that as any intelligent mind is also aware of history and the secret combinations within said government to take away the freedoms and rights of its denizens.

Unpopular, no. I'm in favor of holding officials accountable as long as "ALL" officials and proceedings that are in error are dealt with in the same way and manner. The "conflict of interest" which is very apparent in the Arizona elections seems to be something of interest as well, which should also be recognized. But double standards seem to be strong in our political arena.

These are questions I have also pondered, and these are questions I really haven't come to any solid interpretation. In my younger years, I just simply said to myself, "Well, it makes sense, life at this time with Gog and Magog isn't going to be easy. They will seek to destroy the saints of God, so yes, shorten those days! Now, as with you, what does "shorten" actually mean, and what threat could possibly be so threatening? Yet, despite the priesthood power of the two prophets -- who are protecting the Jews -- they still manage (God suffering) to kill them. How would they have been able to kill these prophets who had been performing such miracles to protect the covenant people of the Lord? The threat in the previous verses and verses after are as follows: 1. False prophets and false Christ will rise. They are even able to show "signs and wonders." I have been curious about these signs and wonders that even the elect could be deceived. 2. Tribulation, a great war 3. The powers of heaven shall be shaken. These are very intriguing words. If God can protect his saints, according to their faith, then why do the days need to be shortened? Does this mean then that "faith" is dwindling quite rapidly among the earth, and only a small portion of the population have "faith"? If so, we know tyrants are raised during such times, because the natural man will take over, and when the natural man takes over we can see where that leads to. The Book of Mormon talks of a day where the people were ready and willing to kill every person that believed in the sign of Samuel of the Lamanite. Shall we also come to a time where we shall see a similar choice from non-believers (particularly atheists)? We could for sure. From what I can find online "shorten" does highlight time. Why would an all powerful God need to "shorten" the day? For one he is God and perfectly just and true. There is no shadow of changing, so all laws -- higher laws -- are honored and obeyed otherwise he would cease to be God. This is simply where you pray for a vision to show you how this day is and then all the puzzle pieces will come together!

Thanks for the information. Do you know why he specifies he is under duress, and that he could receive a felony if he didn't respond and say "aye"?

Anyone here in Arizona that knows more about this? This is pretty concerning if it is true.

"Sufficient proof" in some ways within the Church is a conundrum. Overtime, the Lord can -- and has -- provided sufficient proof that has eliminated doubt to some. On the other hand, "proof" (caveat: a sign) is not the way a testimony is received, and it is not the way the Lord eliminates doubt. Those who act in faith, in time, will eliminate all doubt as they continue to trust in God. At the same time, those who think they are entitled to a "sign" or "proof" in order to eliminate doubt will only increase in their doubt. The key phrase here is "honest seekers of truth." The Church's attempt will decrease doubt if the individual is truly a "honest seeker of truth." If not, then the articles and other sources provided by the Church will only induce more questions and thus induce more doubt. This is the irony of some ex-members who are now anti. They are self-proclaimed truth seekers all the while denying the truth God has already showed them. Does a reason explanation really accomplish anything? Yes, yes it does to those who are honestly seeking truth. There have been explanations I have read that have surely increased my faith, thus decreasing my doubt. When I first learned about some of the history of the Church I was honestly shocked. I then looked for explanations, alternative thoughts, theories, and actual evidence. This is when I discovered the difference between a Church history fact, and the assumption encompassing the fact being promulgated as fact, rather than the fact itself. This is a common thread among ex-members and anti's. They want you to believe their "assumption" is the fact, while ignoring the actual fact. For that, I'm grateful to the men and women who searched and shared the facts. I am pleased with the Church's attempts to truly help the "honest seeker of truth," and not the ones who want to feign "betrayal" and all other sorts of emotions. I just hope one day, that he who is the way, the truth, and the life will see me as an honest seeker of truth, as I seek to become more like him. As to helping, we can simply do what the Lord has done -- invite. As to whether or not they are truly honest seekers of truth will be made aware in their decisions.

Elder Bendar answers this question wonderfully here: We don't identify ourselves by our proclivities, whether right or wrong. Vort already, pretty much, said what I was thinking. In the church we don't hear people say: "Hi, I'm a straight saint." "Hi, I'm an adulterer at heart saint." "Hi, I'm a dishonest saint." "Hi, I'm an alcoholic saint." "Hi, I'm a chain smoker saint." "Hi, I'm a recovering watcher of porn saint." (caveat: doesn't watch anymore or act on this proclivity) "Hi, I'm a recovering prostitute saint." We don't identify ourselves in the Church by our proclivities. We identify as for who we are -- sons and daughters of God, which merely "saint" is sufficient. "I'm a Latter-day Saint." That is all that is needed. To be clear. There might be a time where saying, "Hi, I'm a Latter-day Saint. And I have struggled with same-sex attraction, being gay...." And then a lesson is provided or some doctrinal truth. But for some reason, one proclivity seems to be justified for some justified reason.

Sadly, we already have groups saying that Christ was non-binary, and seeking to prove it with scripture. So, this ridiculous claim is already there.

While in Canada: