Anddenex

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." ― Benjamin Franklin

Yes, they're doing it.  Not a lot of news coverage, you have to know where to look.
Here's the Fort Collins, CO police Twitter asking the neighborhood for help: https://www.facebook.com/fortcollinspoliceservices/posts/385965323580934  My former neighbor who moved up there sent me this picture: 

 
Here's a story about an arson attack on a conservative lobbying group's office in Madison Wisconsin: https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/08/us/anti-abortion-office-arson/index.html?fbclid=IwAR0Lv5QbfCkx211H7pmcJLQovDKbG01aCWunV6TW9S6q3l9leR550eQhZR8
 
After initially declining to denounce such things, Psaki and Biden seem to have done the responsible thing, at least partly:
 
I would have liked to see something a little more strongly worded.  Something that directly addresses the protesters, maybe something like this:
"You have to go home now, we have to have peace.  We have to have law and order.  We have to respect our Supreme Court justices.  We don't want anyone hurt."
It would be nice to see Psaki say something that strong.  Actually, it would be nice to see Biden address the nation and say something like that.  I'm pretty ticked off that he isn't.
 

It seems to me like the left truly wants conflict, but they don't want to get caught starting it so they can continue claiming moral supremacy.
Kind of like the annoying sibling that says "I'm not touching you" over and over again until the other one finally smacks their hand away. Then they go crying to mom and dad and the one who lashed out gets in trouble, when all they really wanted was to be left alone.

Recently, a Georgetown Law professor (Josh Chafetz, no relation to Jason Chafetz):
His tweet is now private so it cannot be linked to. Commentators said that the conclusion of his rant was that the "Capitol City Riots would have been perfectly legitimate if it were abortion supporters instead of MAGA fanatics."
As clearly biased and possibly insane as this sounds, there is some kernel of truth to his idea that no one is really considering.
Democracy is only a great system in that the success or failure is determined by the righteousness of the populace.  No longer can unrighteous kings determine the fate of a righteous people.
But if the people choose evil, then democracy shall reign.  And the demise of the republic is assured.
Either we judge and police ourselves in righteousness, or the Lord will declare (as Bill Cosby put it so eloquently) EVERYBODY!  OUT OF THE POOL!

Well, the oncology stuff (radiation and chemo) is all done, and all that is left is to wait a couple of months and go under the knife.
Radiation treatments have been rough the last couple of weeks. Not quite as debilitating as the chemo, but a daily battle with fatigue and occasional concerns about making it to the bathroom on time, and it hasn't been fun. In theory, things should improve over the next few weeks.

I don't know much people here want an update, but here it is anyway. While it's not the end of the road, but today starts my last chemo cycle. Just have to get past this weekend, and we can move on to the radiation oncology phase. As rough as chemo is, I'm sure looking forward seeing chemo in the rearview mirror.

Here is the proof that this was not an insurrection.  The government suspended habeas corpus AGAINST ITS OWN CITIZENS and no one is able to stop it.  They are imprisoned in solitary confinement without a chance for bail or counsel.
When the government resorts to injustice to make their point, they've already proven that their point is not worthy of the justice system.
When there is a conflict between parties who both cry out that the other side is the offender, one need only ask: "Who is using injustice as a weapon?"

So, we're apparently up to 28 attacks
https://catholicvote.org/pregnancy-center-attack-tracker/
Oh, but don't worry, these are only isolated incidents.  It's not like it is encouraged by political rhetoric.
Nothing to see here.  
I wonder... 28 across a country as big as ours may not be the panic moment some take it to be.  What number will it take before it is a trend?  When does it become terrorism?  How many before it isn't just "isolated"?

I agree with nearly all of this; but write separately to note that what happened on January 6 was a mob, not an insurrection.  The perpetrators, IMHO, ought to have been horsewhipped, and I’ll even go so far as to say that Ashli Babbitt’s shooting was most likely justified and it seems to me that she basically earned herself a Darwin Award.
Nevertheless, there is a difference between a mob and an insurrection; and that difference is being deliberately blurred for political reasons.

Only political blowback??? For a SCOTUS justice?  How, exactly?

https://first-image.org/2022/06/11/greshamcentersetonfire/
A pro-life pregnancy center was the victim of arson.

A few weeks ago, we flew to Chicago to attend my son's law school graduation. The commencement ceremony for the law school included two primary speakers, a woman and a man. The woman spoke first. She had a lengthy list of qualifications (including a director of Planned Parenthood, which lessened her substantially in my son's estimation). She began her talk by saying that such commencement speeches typically included lists of platitudes, which she promised to follow. True to her word, she then offered one of the most uninteresting, useless talks I can ever remember listening to in any venue. "Utterly forgettable" does not do justice to just how useless this talk was. Of course, she was wildly applauded when she finished—though I wonder if the applause was less for the talk she had given and more for the fact that it was over.
The man spoke next. He, too, had a lengthy list of qualifications, including being a practicing lawyer who (I think) argued before the Supreme Court, a highly influential professor, and a respected author. He offered a truly interesting and insightful speech on the importance of the Supreme Court and dismissed the idea that the justices there were biased on the whole. It made up for the cringing boredom of the previous speaker. He, too, was applauded, though it seemed to me that his talk was not as well-received as the previous travesty.
Lessons: Platitudes often take the place of actual thought and ideas. In addition, platitudes tend to be better received by society, even (perhaps especially) by those who call themselves well-educated.

We seem to now have a society in pretty much the entire developed world where we choose to believe falsehoods and stick with it no matter what.  The fact that they're sticking to their guns is actually an admirable quality.
People have the second half of that equation down pat.  The problem is that too often, they don't abide by the first half of the equation.  Why is that?
Human beings have a natural desire for truth.  Truth brings us peace.  The Light of Christ tells us all that this is true.  And truth provides a sense of security.
Virtually any continually surviving religion today will provide a moral framework for people to determine what is truth. Religious conviction should also be slow in forming.  We are raised through years of teaching.  One may call it indoctrination if one disagrees with what is taught.  But it doesn't matter.  The child growing up in it is always curious.  Some ask more questions than others.  But they still take years and years to form their convictions about that religion -- even if they were indoctrinated since childhood.  
Whether right or wrong, they have learned
There is such a thing as "truth". To reason out (whether false foundation or not) how truths fit together.  They have learned how one truth will lead to another truth. To understand that knowing the truth will help guide their lives. They have put that system through their own natural curiosity of "how & why".  That much at least provides a foundation for "proving all things."
The problem we see today about the rising generation leaving religion in droves is not because they realize what they were taught was wrong.  The problem is that they were never taught "truth" in the first place.  Parents falsely believe that they shouldn't "force" their religion on their children.  And there is a genuine wisdom in not "forcing" it upon them.  But that often translates into "shield them from any religion at all."
If you're never taught what is true (or worse, that there actually isn't a "truth" at all) how can one recognize it when they hear it?  When people start off being told that there is no truth, then by default, they will believe what is false. 
As children of God, our spirits are fed by light and truth.  We NEED truth.  And if we can't find truth from our early surroundings, we desperately grab onto some falsehood as truth. "Hold fast to that which is false" becomes teh default.  No such thing as "slowly forming convictions". No such thing as "proving all things".   A starving person doesn't care if food is poisoned.  They will ravenously eat it anyway.
I would rather have a child brought up in a false religion than to have them raised with no religion at all.  The false religion has a foundation of the idea of truth that we can work with.  But to be raised thinking there is no truth?  Exits from such a deep pit are few and far between.

The first and foremost idea that presents itself is -- opposition. The tree of knowledge of good and evil was "death": physical and spiritual. The tree of life, while in the garden was "life": spiritual. It was a tree they could freely eat of previously.
If Adam and Eve partook of the tree of life after they had partaken of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil it would have overcome "physical" death, but not spiritual death. There would have been no resurrection. There would have been no Savior, as death or the great sacrifice could never have occurred if they were immortal. This means, both man and women, would have been lost forever and ever, and to forever remain in their sins.
Thus, a protector was placed to protect Adam and Eve from partaking of the tree of life.
Immortality was already achieved in the Garden with Adam and Eve, but not in the same sense as a resurrected body with glory. Eternal life/exaltation and immortality (Moses 1:39), on the other hand, can only be achieved through death of the body -- whether that means through translation or actual death (a time of separation of body and spirit). Once again pointing to some idea of the "Fall" had to have occurred.

In my studies, both teachings are correct. At least for me, I separate the conditions of the world from the righteousness of the Saints. The conditions of the world do not need to meet any standard for the Lord to come the second time. God's kingdom/Church, on the other hand, will need to have a people ready to receive him.
Yes. Not everyone in the Millennium will be members of God's kingdom/Church. I believe there will be Atheists who may not believe in God, but recognized the safety that will be among the Saints before Christ comes. They will honor the laws/rules of this body of people. There will be good Christians, Muslims, Hindu's, and many other people who live "good enough" lives to be spared. As God doesn't force anyone to accept or believe his strait and narrow path, this means they will die according to their beliefs but will have lived a Terrestrial law, thus receiving a terrestrial body/glory.
I think this is the type of question that creates a conundrum of sorts. Sorta like when growing up my Christian friend would ask me, "If God is all powerful could he make a rock that he can't destroy"?
Does "evil" stop existing because God is perfect? Yes and no, I suppose. If God always chooses "good" and never would choose evil, then ultimately "evil" doesn't exist -- and yet evil does exist -- it is simply no longer present.
In the Millennium, I am thinking there is to some degree "the natural man" because not everyone will "choose" the strait and narrow path.  If the Millennium were the "Celestial" law and kingdom, then the natural man would not exist (paragraph above).
Yes, as to same sex attraction -- in time. The mortal body will be perfect, thus any deviation from that (any ideology of the world) will be resolved.  At the same time, it may not be because same sex attraction is a choice (I understand the world doesn't like this thought -- it tells them to behave and control their thoughts), and any choice could remain. The difference in this place no one will be raising a "rainbow" flag -- a telestial ideology.

I’m against all those points, including background checks.  “Shall not be infringed” was put there for an important reason.

Colorado has had red flag bills on the books for a few years now.  It sounds so dang appealing - your crazy uncle says he's had it, and he's gonna go shoot up a police station tomorrow.  You call the cops, they get a judge to sign off on things, and they go separate him from his guns before he can do something bad.  He has mental health and law enforcement hoops to jump through before he gets his guns back.  What could possibly go wrong?
I have two issues.  First, not a fan of the government searching/seizing your property to prevent something someone MIGHT do.  Not a fan of potential abuses - angry ex-lovers, evil bosses who want to get you in trouble, political or cultural retaliation from activists - hooray, we now have new ways to remove someone's liberties from them through fraudulent activity!   Second, it didn't stop the Boulder King Soopers shooting, even though the guy had a big list of friends and family jumping up and down and warning everyone they could find that he was about to do something horrible. 
 
I'm ok with hardening schools, and glad to hear democrats are finally ending their opposition to such things.

https://thehill.com/news/senate/3520521-mcconnell-touts-support-of-bipartisan-product-after-senate-gun-proposal-announced/
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/12/politics/senate-gun-safety-agreement/index.html
Apparently a gun control bill is about to pass Congress and the White House.
Here are the highlights:
Money being spent on mental health centers and resources (including suicide prevention).  And funding for schools and mental health. Buyers under 21 have an enhanced background check. Resources for states to remove guns from people who have been adjudicated as a danger to themselves or others. NICS will include domestic abusers and those who have restraining orders on them. Closes loop holes on who is a federally licensed firearms dealer.  There was apparently a loophole that some could act as a dealer regarding purchasing from a manufacturer, but they did not qualify when it came to selling them to the public.  So, some people were able to buy without a background check. Cracks down on straw purchases. #1: I think most of us can get behind that one. 
#2: I think this is ok.  But if it is applied in such a manner that it ends up being an outright ban on those between 18 - 21, it is just the camel's nose in the tent.
#3 & #4: I support this in spirit.  But I see the potential for over-reaching government to oppressively apply this.  If one is mentally adjudicated as a danger to others simply because they want to buy a gun...  And, yes, many on the left have declared this is their goal.  No shame, no apologies, no exclusions, no conditions.  If you want to own a gun, you should be declared mentally insane.  As history has shown, what is fringe liberal today will be common liberal tomorrow.
#5: I didn't really know much about this.  Apparently it is a thing.  I'm not convinced that the statistic from "Every town for gun safety" is accurate.  But it is clear that it happens.  And I'm all for having a background check for everyone.  But what will this end up looking like?
#6: I figured this happened on some level.  I don't know how big a problem it is.  But I fear that this will get many people arrested for simply wanting to make some money on the sale of a gun.
 
So, my three rules?  Let's see if it works?
1) Not a re-hash of laws already on the books?  I'm not aware of any laws that cover these things already as far as gun safety.
2) Proven to reduce gun crime?  I believe the mental health stuff is understood to be a big factor in gun crimes.  But what percentage?  And is it going to make a big enough dent?  I don't know.  But overall, it seems benign enough to give it a try.
3) Not an outright gun ban?  We'll see if it ends up banning guns from a lot of people who should have a right to purchase and own a gun.  Again, it sure seems benign enough.  But I'm just not sure how it will be applied.

This sums it up nicely. We can see this concept with the popular "ideologies" of our day.

"It is as the Lord Himself lamented to the prophet Isaiah:

“[These] children … will not hear the law of the Lord:
“[They] say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits:
“Get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us.”

Sadly enough, my young friends, it is a characteristic of our age that if people want any gods at all, they want them to be gods who do not demand much, comfortable gods, smooth gods who not only don’t rock the boat but don’t even row it, gods who pat us on the head, make us giggle, then tell us to run along and pick marigolds.

Talk about man creating God in his own image! Sometimes—and this seems the greatest irony of all—these folks invoke the name of Jesus as one who was this kind of “comfortable” God. Really? He who said not only should we not break commandments, but we should not even think about breaking them. And if we do think about breaking them, we have already broken them in our heart. Does that sound like “comfortable” doctrine, easy on the ear and popular down at the village love-in?"
Jeffery R. Holland, Apr 2014 General Conference

Over the years, I've given this phrase:  Many who fall away from the Gospel of Jesus Christ will do so because they've chosen the path of "creating God in their own image."
This is what pretty much everyone does.  It is the great sin of pride that allows us to believe that we believe in a God that suits our needs, rather than trying to change ourselves to meet what God requires of us.
The Old Testament is replete with story after story of the children of Israel going off to worship Baal and Ashtaroth.  Why was this so habitual?  Simple.  They thought there was something wrong with the Law of Moses.  They didn't want to obey all the statutes.  And they really didn't want to worship / love a god who would require such things of them.
Why Baal and Ashtaroth?  Because they were "moldable" gods.  Baal for instance, was called a storm god, a sun god, a fertility god... the list goes on.  And Ashtaroth and Asherah were sometimes considered the same being and other times two separate gods.  They were whatever the people wanted them to be.  You don't like people telling you what you're doing is wrong? Just make a god who tells you that you're ok just as you are.  What the heck is a commandment anyway?
One reason we find it easier to love God and hate our brother is that we can't deny who our brother is.  We love not God, but our "image" of God.  The graven image in our minds is nothing like the actual Being who created us.  Instead, we create our own god.
The task before us is to discover the Living God. He who exists.  Jehovah.  We do not create an image in our minds of what we believe he should be like to be "worthy of my worship".  Even as we study scriptures, we see something that doesn't make sense, we say, "Oh that must be a mistranslation."  Or "I can't believe in a god who does that."
Once we find that the Lord has required or done something we disagree with, our impulse then is to think there was something wrong with HIM.  Instead we're asked to be humbled by the knowledge that maybe we don't know what he's really like.  Maybe we need to change OUR concept of good and evil.  Maybe we just plain don't know the whole story -- and it was only under extreme circumstances where the wickedness of man forced His hand to do something that we consider "bad" to begin a new era of "good".
Maybe we are only a worm.  Maybe we should be declaring "Oh, wretched man that I am."  Maybe we should stop wondering why He isn't behaving like a good little god.

@clbent04 I'm late to the answers, but here are my thoughts.
Why did the universe demand Jesus Christ have to sacrifice and die on our behalf to save us from sin? Do you suppose it’s a universal law that we as imperfect beings can never have eternal life without a Savior interceding on our behalf?
Yes, this is a higher law -- according to the Father's knowledge -- that allows our Father in heaven to remain perfectly just and merciful. Yes, if we choose to sin, a way must be prepared. We learn that clearly in our temple ceremonies, and the Book of Mormon highlights this pretty well. The relation between our agency and our Savior.
Did a law in the universe crack when Adam and Eve committed the first sin where all hope was lost without a Savior? I’m trying to conceptualize why the universe demands sacrifice for us to reach certain levels of progression and if it's necessary for our existence.
Have you had the chance to read or listen to Boyd K. Packer's analogy/parable "The Mediator"? If not, I would recommend listening to it, as it breaks down a more complex doctrine into smaller bits that are more easily understood. If not, this link -- The Mediator -- will take you to it. In relation to that, this is a great seminary video (very 80's) that helps break down agency.
How we explain a concept is important. Nothing "cracked". If someone breaks a law, even a simple law, the law acts upon that individual. When Adam and Eve committed "sin" the law now "acts" -- not cracks -- upon them. Sacrifice is required because we are unable to recompense the law on our own. If I steal I can return what I stole. If I break a neighbors window I can repair that window. If I "sin" how would I recompense and make myself clean? How do you make something unclean, clean? Thus, reiterating why Christ is the way, the truth, and the life. He is the only way to the Father.
If we are eternal and have always existed and always will exist, and if the atonement never happened, how do you suppose we would exist after this life?
This question is already answered in scripture. We would be like the devil and his angels who rebelled against God.
Does God’s plan work without sacrifice? 
An interesting question. The Lord was perfect, he chose to be perfect. Was there any sacrifice for him? Sacrifice is part of God's plan, because we choose to sin. If we loved God like our Savior loved God no sacrifice would have been required. In that light, our Savior is the center of the gospel. Because we do not love God (look at today how many sons and daughters of God know more than God and his servants the prophets) like our Savior does, and we choose to sin, thus a sacrifice was necessary. The easiest modern day "love of the world" rather than "love of God" is how clear God has said he made "male" and "female." Yet, despite the plainness even the "elect" fight to say otherwise.
If sacrifice and suffering are meant to continue in the next life? We hardly grow in this life without suffering, so why would that formula change in the next life?
If we are considering "sacrifice" like our Savior, no, at least for us.  Suffering, what do you mean by suffering? We have perfected bodies, so there is no suffering with mortal ailments. We are immortal. Animals are immortal. Once immortal (spirit and body joined) there is no more death. So the suffering of death is no more, swallowed up in Christ.
If we are exalted, this highlights a different perspective in life. If we are not "exalted" then we know to some degree their is a form of suffering -- a type of hell.
In scripture we are told that even our Savior learned obedience via the things he suffered. What is possible for us to suffer in the next life though? Is God the Father suffering? He sorrows for the sins and decisions of his offspring, his heirs. He even cries due to their decisions that he knows do not bring eternal and mortal happiness/joy.
And along those lines, why does human life need to be sustained by less intelligent animals such as chickens, cows, and pigs...?  Eternal concept here to our eternal existence needing to be sustained at the expense of less intelligent life forms having to die for us?
It doesn't. The word "immortality" -- no death -- should be sufficient to answer the next question.

There's a fine line the Church has to walk in these matters. While they may be very direct in saying we love everyone regardless of their sexual orientation and support them in ways that don't promote sin, perception is still an issue. For many members that line between accepting the sinner but not the sin is not very definite and therefore promoting something that is not distinctly tied to a specific cause, such as equal housing/employment rights and mental health, it can get tricky real fast. Clearly pride month includes accepting gay sexual activity which is something the Church can't do. So unless the Church can make a very clear distinction between what it does and does not support I wouldn't expect it to get involved. 

Totally agree.  And if they came across some of that "Las Vegas" behavior there, they would have had the same reaction. 
But in this case, the objectionable behavior was as I descried above.  I only point this out because simply "dating" for the LGBTQ people automatically chases the Spirit away.  They REALLY felt it leave.
There is a reason that father (described in the previous post) put his daughter's safety into my son's charge.  All who know him, know he's somewhat special that way.  He is very sensitive to the Spirit.  Always has been.  And he protects people.
As you can imagine, my kids are well connected to the extensive homeschooling community in the area.  They did not recognize most of the people there.  The theory is that since it was published by word-of-mouth, some people who most certainly didn't qualify as "LDS Homeschoolers" caught wind of it and went to the website to sign up.  They clicked all the agreements as if it were a software disclaimer form (as if anyone actually reads them).
So, most of them were NOT LDS, and probably not homeschoolers.
My problem with it was -- why didn't they have screeners at the doors saying that their clothing did not pass the dress code?  That would have taken out about 95% of the "crashers" (if we can call them that.

This was a trap and there is no way I would allow my kids to go to another one of these, ever again. I have told my son that he is free to leave, even if the adults tell him he cannot leave. He has asked, "but what if they won't allow me to leave?" I said, "you leave and if they touch you then you can defend yourself."
What these kids had to witness is disgusting. 😠