Anddenex

No. What David did was wrong. 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?

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:

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

I don't disagree, and thus we will see how this section affects this type of scenario.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

As the Lord is the truth, the way, and the life I love when a truth is explained in a different way from a different faith with respect for the Lord:

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.

Has anyone seen The New York Times post, I'm unable to find it, with a rainbow banner or flag with bullet holes? I'm trying to see what post, article, a family member is calling out from The New York Times. I can't find anything representing this online. It's intriguing to me when some people leave the Church how -- all of a sudden -- they know everything. They even know what Christ would say, what Christ would do, how Christ would act, etc...while the whole time acting unlike Christ themselves. Want to see the article myself, as I can't trust what is now written, as it is just another diatribe against the Church and its leaders.

Great question, and something to really think about. We all learn line upon line and grace for grace. In that sense, our faith can grow or our faith can diminish. In all the experiences in our scripture the story that always draws my attention for this type of question is the Lord, the apostles, the boat, and a storm. In light of their fear, and we could easily justify the "fear" of a raging storm, the Lord said the following, "O ye of little faith." And this wasn't the only time the Lord said these words to his disciples. If we can have little faith, then we can have more faith than just a little. Strong faith vs weak faith is often discovered in our trials and temptations. No matter the temptation or trial the Lord remained faithful to his purpose -- the will of the Father. In some experiences we can see where our faith is stronger and in other experiences we can see where our faith is weak. The Lord has said, if miracles have ceased then faith has ceased. That is probably another good indicator of strong or weak, little or a lot of faith.

We need to enact an assault weapons ban to get weapons of war off America’s streets. This quote, is highly disingenuous, and it represents the dishonesty of politicians' at its finest. The concept of "weapons of war" leaves the statement open to every gun in the stores, which ultimately allows for the removal of the 2nd Amendment, or simply removing "shall not be infringed." Every gun from a .22 caliber pistol/rifle and higher are "weapons of war". The .22LR suppressed High Standard pistols were widely used in the Cold and Second world wars. The Colt M4, another .22 rifle was used also in war, and is still issued to the US Army. All hunting rifles. All muzzle loaders can be "weapons of war." And we will have useful idiots who simply go along giving up the rights they have, and which were instilled for their protection from tyrannical and dictator ploys by people who desire power and control.

Depends on the callings. If you have 4 callings that are only one Sunday a month, then adding another calling that is only one Sunday a month doesn't seem to be a heavy load. In other cases, 1 calling is sufficient and you shouldn't add anymore, and there shouldn't be any expectation from the leaders to add another. If you have a significant calling and the leaders are adding more on to you, then the leaders need to go back and read the Handbook more carefully. As to whether or not you accept another calling, that is between you and the Lord. Once you have one calling any other calling results in what you can truly handle. If I have one calling and am offered another my first thought will be, am I in a position to accept another calling? What is my work load? My concern here is that you say you can't work. If you have funds that allows you not to work, then great! If not, then you need to ask to be released from 4 callings, say no to the new one, and find a job so you can be self-reliant. Politely let leadership know, that you are overwhelmed and that you have other priorities that need to be accepted. Again, this is between you and the Lord. I'm just a random brother on the internet.

No, why should I? What happened in Germany is called "history" do you think it is insulting to talk about history and to learn from history so we don't repeat the same mistakes? What happened in Russia (Stalin) is history, do you think it is insulting to learn from Russian history and to recognize when another Stalin is rising, or a group of people like Stalin are rising? What happened in any other country or civilization when a tyranny thrives is "history", is history now insulting to learn from and prevent the same mistakes?

Nope, it was a general statement. The Nazi's didn't take power in one day, it was over time with micro changes that were supported by the people, by businesses, etc... There has been no leader that changed a government, that did it in one day. It has always been through micro changes with a supporting group -- that group will be business, that group will be parties, that group will be every day citizens who just blindly accept paths that lead down it -- we are already heading down it. Comparisons are one of the ways we learn -- objective and experience. It is very telling when immigrants that come from tyrannical governments begin to highlight aspects -- comparison -- of what is done and how they control their denizens. When we discount it, how long then will it take to become just another nation that loses what it originally had? And I'm not bothered at all by people who think comparisons with tyrannical regimes is bad or is taboo, that only aids in the reality of it happening again. Similar to the woke ideology, if you aren't a woman you can't speak about abortion, if you do your a misogynist. Recognizing aspects that are a reality, calling it out, like the North Korean immigrant is how we prevent it.

Already heading down that dark path -- and why shouldn't those freedoms be abridged -- if others can be abridged and you are OK with it, why not others? Are we going to realize what has been lost sooner, or be like the Germans who found out to late? If you are OK with some abridgements, what makes then your opinion on what others shouldn't be abridged as valid? What if someone disagrees and then it is abridged? Will you stand for it? What I have noticed is that individuals who make excuses for one thing will make excuses just as easily for another as long as they can justify the decision logically and rationally. Look at the riots as a perfect example, and hearing people "justify" the actions. We live in a world where calling a woman a woman and a man a man is now hate speech an exciting violence. Yes, already down this dark path dear brother where good is evil and evil is good. We will sadly see more of this as time passes on, as God begins to make the dark deeds apparent to those with eyes to see and ears to hear.