Anddenex
-
Posts
6322 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
21
Posts posted by Anddenex
-
-
12 hours ago, person0 said:
I am not from Arizona, however, I have been following the election and the legal proceedings, and can confirm that this is real and true. On a related note, as it stands, Kari Lake's legal team lost their lawsuit because they weren't able to prove that the voter disenfranchisement that occurred was intentional. She is appealing the decision, but as I understand it, it is unlikely to succeed because, despite what appears to many to be very clear evidence, proving the disenfranchisement occurred is insufficient from a legal standpoint; in AZ, they must be able to prove that it was an intentional act. While it is plausible that it was an intentional act, proving that is much more difficult than proving that it took place.
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.
-
3 hours ago, laronius said:
So while I commend the Church for trying to make as much material accessible as possible and while I appreciate the work of organizations such as FAIR and others, I don't think it's in the Lord's plan to provide sufficient proof as to eliminate all doubt. So what is the proper approach to helping honest seekers of truth who have such doubts? Does providing reasonable explanations to people really accomplish anything?
"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.
-
8 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:
Do you see a difference in admitting to a sinful aspect of existence, and pursuing it? I keep hearing from folks who get ticked off whenever someone is talking about being gay, in the context of trying to live life as a disciple of Christ. People taking issue with statements like "I'm a gay saint"?
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.
-
On 12/23/2022 at 10:29 AM, The Folk Prophet said:
I also think making such assumptions is extremely dangerous and should be avoided at all costs. We are to strive to become like God. Would someone make the argument that God might be gay? That our Heavenly Mother isn't female? I'm sure some would make such a ridiculous claim.
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:
-
20 hours ago, mikbone said:
Would this change our perception of David?
No. What David did was wrong.
20 hours ago, mikbone said:Uriah stated
2 Samuel 11:11 “shall I then go into mine house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife? as thou livest, and as thy soul liveth, I will not do this thing.”
Don’t know about y’all. But if I was on leave from war and had a beautiful young wife hoping to see me, I’d have moved mountains.
And I know that my men on the front line would have approved of my decision.
This question about Uriah honestly surprises me. Rather than focusing on Uriah's honor, this question turns Uriah's experience into something he was not. If Uriah was as the question suggests, which as a servant in the army this would have been known, then Uriah is subject to the following verse of scripture, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
David wouldn't have had to send him to the front line, he would have been able to use the Law of Moses to end Uriah's life by the law, and which would have kept David spotless from murder.
Uriah's honor here is amazing to me. Why should I take pleasure, when my man "and my lord Joab" aren't able to also receive the same privilege? This part of the scripture "and my Lord Joab" -- if my Lord a master is not able to come home and lives in a tent, I should also not partake of any drink and pleasure when the one I serve is working and the servants of my Lord are working. This can easily be symbolic of us and Christ who was betrayed. While Christ works should we be lazy and eat and drink because we are tempted to "rest" or should we be doing what our Lord is doing? Uriah appears to have honor that isn't seen in many man -- especially our day, and because of this honor we somehow call to question his orientation?
- mikbone, Carborendum and JohnsonJones
-
3
-
9 hours ago, Vort said:
The terms "gatherer" and "farmer" are not mutually exclusive. There is a continuum between a gatherer economy/society and one based on farming. Johnny Appleseed wasn't a farmer, but that doesn't mean no one ate the apples from the trees he planted.
Valid point for sure.
-
This is something I have not heard of before, but in light of the "unknown origins" (so to speak) of the Book of Mormon (and how the Book of Mormon discusses a very intelligent society) I found this interesting:
- JohnsonJones, Carborendum and Vort
-
3
-
2 hours ago, mirkwood said:
Carb, there are two different discussions going on in this thread. One is what you said, which as far as I know, we all agree on about gun grabbers and their antics. The other is the below quote. That quote is factually inaccurate, which is where the discussion of calibers occurred. There is either ignorance or willful ignorance (I frankly don't know which) going on in that part of the discussion. The M4 (and other variants) do not fire a .22 cartridge.
It is neither ignorance or willful ignorance. The US army, I already provided the link above anyone can read it, provides the following M4 (Link at anyone disposal). The following is in the description of the M4:
Caliber: 5.56x45 mm
I also provided another quote from another site (which entails what @Carborendum just specified regarding definitions). I will share the quote once again here:
"22 caliber, or 5.6 mm caliber, refers to a common firearms bore diameter of 0.22 inch (5.6 mm). Cartridges in this caliber include the very widely used . 22 Long Rifle and . 223 Remington / 5.56×45mm NATO."
The 5.56x45mm is referring to the size and diameter of the bullet. So, my statement is factually accurate.
Every article I can find specifies the same thing, "When looking at the .22LR vs .223, the truth is that the .223 is, in fact, a .22 caliber round," which is what I specified. And yet, everyone here who is saying its not, has not provided any source specifying why it is not, except their personal feelings.
I would be happy to see/read any other site that specifies why every site I have read thus far points the .223, the 5.56x45mm as a 22 caliber bullet, and yet people still want to say its not factual, or its ignorant to specify what others already claim as fact. Here is another article -- please refute it and why?
-
3 hours ago, Carborendum said:
I'm going to take a different tack to what (I believe) you're trying to say.
With the current state of the gun-control lobby and the level of knowledge of Democrat legislators (and even the general public) we have to be concerned about the language of the bill not being too broad or vague (which is often done on purpose). If they were to ban a gun capable of firing a .223 round, it takes no stretch of the imagination to apply that legislation to a gun capable of firing a .22 round.
- They don't even know the definition of "semi-automatic". It's just "scary sounding." That's all they know.
- "Weapons of war" is a meaningless term. Every gun is made for war. Some are more effective or have different purposes. But any gun can be used effectively in war. That's the whole point.
- Trump banned bump-stocks through executive order because it was, indeed, a "cheat" (IMHO). But the Dem reps didn't even know what a bump-stock was. They just had another "term" to rally against.
- They completely fabricated the term "assault rifle" for no reason other than to ban "scary-looking" guns that were functionally no different than many other guns that were ignored.
Given the people we are dealing with in Washington, does anyone really think that any legislation aimed at .223 weapons will not be applied to .22 weapons?
That is correct Carb. What you have summed up here was the intent of my original post. The post began with a search online pertaining to the term "weapon of war" with the following Google question. "What 22 caliber guns were used in war"? At this time, I didn't realize the 223 and the .22 were both 22 caliber bullets, and my origin al post never discussed velocity, gun powder, etc.... It was merely saying, if you use the term "weapon of war" (as you already pointed out -- purposely vague), then any gun can then be subject to that term. This means any gun then can be on the list to ban. They start with one and then it will roll down hill from there.
I made no argument that they were the same. I knew the .22LR and the .223 were different.
-
On 12/5/2022 at 11:49 AM, mirkwood said:
No, they are not the same.
No one said they were the same! No one argued they were the same.
EDIT: Once again this reminds me of fly fisherman who argue tooth and nail that an "indicator" and a "bobber" are not the same thing. They will show pictures also.
No, they are right, the pictures of indicators and bobbers aren't the same. The indicator and the bobber are different, and can be different in weight, size, floatation, etc... and despite all this the fly fishing indicator is a bobber just like the .223 and the .22 are both .22 caliber bullets.
Once again, no one argued they were the same bullet.
EDIT 2: This also reminds me of Crocodile Dundee where the would be robber pulls a knife out and says (paraphrased), "I've got a knife." By which Dundee say, "That's not a knife, this is a knife." For all intents and purposes, the humor is great here, BECAUSE they were both knives. And if anyone denied the smaller one was a knife, simply because it's smaller...well...anyone can argue against what something is. We do it all the time.
-
2 hours ago, LDSGator said:
Fly fishing is like the major leagues of fishing. Way, way beyond my ability, that’s for sure.
I used to enjoy regular, basic fishing but I’m awful at it.
I doubt it would be beyond your ability. I used to think the same way before I started fly fishing. I'm not as good, or detailed in the minutiae as other fly fisherman, but it sure is a fun method to catch fish.
-
56 minutes ago, DMGNUT said:
Wow... when I'm wrong about something I simply say, "sorry, my mistake". But I find that some have difficulties with that simple response.
At this point, I am truly sorry to have started a discussion about firearms with someone who knows little to nothing about firearms... Sorry, my mistake.
I will politely excuse myself from this discussion.
Yes, please do. This way I don't have to further a discussion with someone who wants to pretend to be sorry, and wants to insult someone producing facts about firearms you seem to not be able to handle. If you can't deal with facts, which you couldn't dispute. Don't bother further communication. It's better that way.
EDIT: This discussion reminds me of pedantic anglers who try to tell someone the fly fishing "indicator" isn't a bobber, and then proceed to give their full anal explanations of why the indicator isn't a bobber. But with all "intents and purposes" its a bobber.
-
21 hours ago, DMGNUT said:
Fact... the military does not issue a .22 caliber M4... which is what you said.
But again, I'm very sorry to have rained on the parade.
Interesting as to what you call a fact, and how people split hairs. Let's review this fact for a moment. The US Army indeed does have the M4 currently in the list of given weapons.
You have already pointed out that the M4, your words, "Yes, for all intents and purposes, it is basically a .22 caliber bullet," which can be validated with this also, "22 caliber, or 5.6 mm caliber, refers to a common firearms bore diameter of 0.22 inch (5.6 mm). Cartridges in this caliber include the very widely used . 22 Long Rifle and . 223 Remington / 5.56×45mm NATO."
So, fact, the military actually does issue a .22 rifle for all intents and purposes. Not sure why you want to split hairs, or deny this fact but totally up to you.
-
5 hours ago, DMGNUT said:
I agree with basically everything being said in this thread, but with all due respect, I must disagree with the above single statement. Perhaps you're not a regular shooter (or perhaps you are) and this is simply an oversight, no biggie... But the M4/AR platform, is not chambered for a ".22" round, in the traditional sense. Yes, for all intents and purposes, it is basically a .22 caliber bullet (meaning the diameter is .22 of an inch)... but actually saying the M4 fires a ".22", as opposed to what it actually fires... a ".223 or 5.56", is disingenuous.
The muzzle velocity and energy exchange on impact of the ".22" vs the ".223 or 5.56" are vastly different.
The .22 has a muzzle velocity of approximately 1,000fps... the .223 is approximately 2,600fps.
The .22 has a muzzle energy of approximately 100 (foot pounds of energy)... the .223 is approximately 1,250 (foot pounds of energy).
Note: The word "approximately" as used above, is simply to denote that the numbers shown are "averages" based on "standard" bullet weights, powder loads, etc.
Can you get a kit to convert, (or buy new) an AR that will fire traditional .22 ammo, yes you can. Does the military issue the M4 rifle to fire a .22... no they don't.
I think @Vort covered what I was saying nicely.
Edit:
Let's review what I said and your interpretation, singling out one statement. Here are the main points of what I said surrounding "weapons of war."
1) .22 caliber and higher are weapons of war. This is a factual statement.
2) Is the M4 a higher caliber of the .22 standard pistol? Yes, yes it is. Another factual statement.
3) Is the M4 a weapon of war. Yes, yes, it is. Once again a factual statement.
4) In war, we can see that lower caliber of weapons than an AR have been used in war. So the velocity means nothing to the comment I made. It actually supports it because we can see lower caliber weapons have been used in war -- and are considered weapons of war.
5) If you use the term "weapon of war" it can mean any gun because .22 caliber weapons have been used in war.
What was disingenuous in my post? Nothing. And you even said yourself, which is what I specified, "Yes, for all intents and purposes, it is basically a .22 caliber bullet." The velocity between the two are irrelevant seeing there are much more high powered guns used in war than a .22 high standard pistol and the M4. Thus, my post centered around "weapons of war." Are you saying you disagree that the M4 and other lower velocity pistols are weapons of war, or do you think the lower velocity isn't a weapon war? What's disingenuous?
The disingenuous statement is from Biden about removing "weapons of war"? This includes all guns as they can be weapons of war. My shotgun. My 30-30, my 210, and others can all be used to defend if "war" ever hit our continent. Thus my statement stands correct, if you can regulate the term "weapon of war" this means goodbye to the 2nd amendment or at least "shall not be infringed."
-
1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:
Well, in a way the honor code is now potentially against the law if people are "married". The school cannot be forced to perform gay marriages. And it can't have tax breaks or other government benefits removed because of their views. But it isn't protected from law suits....
I don't disagree, and thus we will see how this section affects this type of scenario.
QuoteSEC. 6. No impact on religious liberty and conscience.
(a) In general.—Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to diminish or abrogate a religious liberty or conscience protection otherwise available to an individual or organization under the Constitution of the United States or Federal law.
(b) Goods or services.—Consistent with the First Amendment to the Constitution, nonprofit religious organizations, including churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, nondenominational ministries, interdenominational and ecumenical organizations, mission organizations, faith-based social agencies, religious educational institutions, and nonprofit entities whose principal purpose is the study, practice, or advancement of religion, and any employee of such an organization, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage. Any refusal under this subsection to provide such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges shall not create any civil claim or cause of action.
-
2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:
What are the chances BYU gets sued over this bill now fairly soon after it's signed into law?
I'm interested in what thoughts you have for this?
It's a great question, in light of the history over the past 20 years.
-
45 minutes ago, laronius said:
Yeah there will always be some grey area between religious practice and the governments ability to govern. If, for example, a religion believes in getting married young, at what point does the government step in and say "no, that's too young" ?
This is one of the points, rights within the Constitution I find very intriguing. In reality, the Constitution provides the opportunity for the Church to be fully guided by the Lord (direct revelation); however, when misguided, controlling, or even evil man are in power (Governor Boggs) they tread on the Constitution.
One of those greys areas is that of some Muslim/Islam practices. On my mission I met an individual who converted to Christianity, as a result he could never go home. If he went home, professed his conversion to Christianity he would have been killed.
If religious freedom was without contest, then this practice would be seen even in America. Fortunately, it isn't, because one of the most important rights is that of "speech," which entails our thoughts and actions.
- JohnsonJones and laronius
-
2
-
The creation began with Adam and Eve as perfect and immortal. They were "innocent" with a capacity to choose between two fruits (according to what we now have scripturally). That was the creation. The fall (is not a creation) resulted in our capacity to more fully choose between good and evil or spiritual and carnal -- to be carnally minded is death and to be spiritually minded is life eternal.
In contrast we have two different types of cities and results: Sodom and Gomorrah and the city of Enoch. Within each city we can see a civilization that followed the verse you have shared, and we also have the opposite. We have a city that was more inclined to follow and keep the commandments of God. If this was the absolute result, then the city of Enoch and other civilizations would have never reached this potential. This gives more evidence that we all have the "capacity" for good and evil, and depending on our upbringing, it will determine how quickly the adversary can tempt us to do evil. How carnal we are.
In light of this, I believe this is why the Lord makes it very clear regarding the sins of the children upon the parents if we as parents do not teach our children. In my youth, my earliest experiences were the desire to be good, not evil; however, in my youth (my teen years) I completely now understand the following words from the Brother of Jared, "because of the fall our natures have become evil continually."
Easy example, look at where we have come to in America within 20 years. The more "evil" is recognized as "good" the more we will see of that evil, because to be spiritually minded requires faith in something that is true, something that has substance, but is not seen. The natural man relies on the five senses, and this is why the natural man is more inclined to be devilish, foolish, vain, and evil. The natural man becomes a law unto him/herself, while the spiritual man recognizes his/her dependence upon God to overcome the natural man, or the natural man tendencies -- as a result of the fall.
Easy example, despite Jonah's awareness of God's command he still disobeyed. Despite the clear answer of "No" Joseph Smith still delivered the 116 pages which were ultimately lost. The natural man deals solely with the here and now (Telestial choices), while the spiritual man requires faith for the here, now, and the future (Celestial choices)
-
5 hours ago, Carborendum said:
I'm reminded of Biden's statement about what gas prices were under Trump. Wow! And even with the internet, people simply believe it. Worse, the MEDIA is repeating the claims. New-speak? How about NEWSpeak?
Time for hating others for their hate-speech.
Yes, newspeak is quite prevalent in our society today. All we have to do is look closely to the removal or simple change of words to mean something different, or to simply remove the orthodox meaning of the intended word change.
Then, look at how this will ultimately change the outcome of anything and all that encompasses that word.
A movie I loved in high school was the movie "Swing Kids"! What I discovered, many years later, is how the main concept of 1984 is in this movie. As I read 1984 I constantly was reminded of this movie (not surprising seeing the content of the movie).
Then you begin to realize the main focus of any change will always include the teaching/instruction of the upcoming generation. What words you can or can not say, rather than understanding free speech and what that entails and "actually" does not entail. Give a group specific rights without punishment, even if their deeds should be punished. The most recent riots are a good example of this.
-
16 hours ago, MrShorty said:
Any thoughts beyond the video? ....
The main point of the analogy, at least in my perception, is the final relationship between iron and wood, "One will become damaged, while the other will become dull." In contrast if both are iron it depends on how the iron is used. The final relationship between iron and iron can also be, "One will become damaged, while the other will become dull." However, if iron and iron are used properly (not against each other), then one can easily sharpen their tool.
The danger of any analogy or metaphor is to get caught up in the multiple nuances of potential meaning rather than simply paying attention to the intention of the analogy. For example, I have seen individuals get caught up with the widow's mite. Some have said, "Well, it was only two mites! It's easy to give 100% when you have very little." Although true, this subsequently disregards what the Lord was teaching, because the widow could have easily said also, "I don't have anything to give, what I have I need for one last meal and then die." BUT she didn't, she gave what she had knowing she would probably die anyway without money to buy food.
This minister could actually believe exactly what you are saying with regards to marriage and divorce; although, his analogy does have weight in such a circumstance. I have a family member, and I also know of others, who have left the Church. My family member, should have remained strong rather than weak minded. If a spouse is threatening divorce, or becomes a source of "damage" that would ultimately "dull" your love for the Lord, in that case, take matters to the Lord and remember the first and great commandment is to "love" God first. How a person chooses to do that, is between them and the Lord, and we also know from scripture that "love" can hide a multitude of sins. In some cases, it is the love of the spouse (faithful spouse) that returns lost ones back to the gospel.
I watched a young lady of five kids cry due to the damage now being caused by her husband who was leaving the Church. She eventually left the Church also and now her kids will grow up without the gospel. In that case, as an outsider, I would have said the better choice would have been to let him leave, and then do her best to raise her posterity in righteousness. We can't force anyone, nor anyone's mind, but we do have control of our own destiny (the choices we make every day) and our testimony.
I'm sorry you find yourself in such a difficult scenario, and with everything else you have shared pertaining to health.
With my family member, we will in this case liken him unto iron. He continually seeks to find fault with the Church. Anything he can wrest, make an offender for a word/phrase, he is doing so. In this case, he is constantly swinging the iron to chop down the trunk (wood) of any other faithful believer. You know the type, they have their own phrase -- mocking words -- toward faithful believing members of the Church. They throw out the word "Mormon" with disrespect to continue to try to prove a point while asking that others love them and show respect. I don't have any problem being around him; however, if he wants to swing the axe constantly rather than be mutually beneficial, then I don't care about being around him. He is simply "dulling" his ability to listen and hear the Holy Ghost. He is "damaging" others so that he may feel more justified in his decisions now. The Lord has also made it clear that if your eye offends you, pluck it out. There is only so much "damage" to accept and receive before you simply say, I'm OK with not being around him. I won't forsake him. If he wants to come around, call, etc... my hand is always outstretched toward friendship and brotherly love, but if he wants to only swing the axe -- I'm OK to not even provide the option until he is willing to do what he demands from others -- be respectful and kind.
-
-
8 minutes ago, LDSGator said:
@Anddenex
Try this. It’s their updates to the news story-if it was posted by the old gray lady it’ll be here.https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/11/21/us/colorado-springs-shooting-news
I don't have an account so can't view it, but reading other articles that seems to be the correct event. Another sad day.
The Shortening before the Baking
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
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!