• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by SpiritDragon

  1. Hi Fether, I don't believe the term is used largely by others, but I've come across the concept in studies of environment and behavior that may match what you're looking for. I call it the proximity impulse. Basically, when something we desire is close and easy to access we are more likely to engage in the desire. A classic example is a study called the Office Candy Dish, where visible, open, candy dishes in close proximity to workers leads to more candy consumption than closed off opaque candy dishes or those that are further away. Thus, just as the candy was not needed before seeing it and being able to grab it, The black hole video wasn't needed until it showed up and became available. I do believe some of these are compounded by an aspect of the fear of missing out as well though, because unless you write down the video name and allot a time to come back later part of you realizes that by not watching it now you may never do so. I think the same can be said of obsessing over responding to a question, except in this case it's an added level of instant gratification as well. By going to sleep and responding in the morning there is delayed gratification in being the one with the answer and the supposed prestige it may bring. There may also be an element of challenge in responding to a text that may be perceived at some level as creating an unsafe environment that needs to be resolved before sleep. Anyways, hopefully there's something helpful in there for you.
  2. Sounds like you've watched this episode before
  3. This is one of those stories that I'm not 100% sure is real, but I picked it up on my mission. Sharing horror stories of things that happened (particularly in testimony meetings) when we had investigators visiting, and most of us were sharing stories of weird and/or "deep" doctrine being shared that caused us some explaining to do with our investigators, one of my fellow missionaries shared the following story: While sitting there listening to a sister's remarks, this is essentially the dialogue that follows - Sister (at pulpit sobbing): ... this always happens to me, I start to get emotional and can't speak clearly. I'm such a big boob! Bishop (trying to console her, a little too close to the mic): That's alright, sister, the Bishop likes big boobs.
  4. That is terrifying. We all always pose a potential risk of spreading communicable disease, and disease has always been among us. Let's just cede more power to the government to interfere in our lives, yeesh. As for the reference to the prior conversation, I thank you for your input. I'm undecided on where I stand with that issue still and perhaps border on the side of apostasy in my beliefs, so I'll keep those thoughts to myself - although I have formed them through scripture study and some prayer. Either way, I appreciate the apologetic approach and have wrestled with various iterations of how this could be. I suppose, in many ways it comes back to a much earlier conversation (circa 2012ish) wherein I expressed concerns over personal interpretation of spiritual answers. It's hard because if I'm supposed to follow personal revelation and follow the prophet and the two don't agree, which is wrong? Either my personal revelation upon which my testimony was originally developed is askew calling in to question the validity of anything moving forward, or something else entirely and I just don't know.
  5. Which is really not that different, I suppose. The idea behind setting up these systems is no doubt still driven by a hope to reach a specific goal. It's not dissimilar from missionary goals being followed up with action items - something that can actually be acted on. Thus we can think of systems as being sets of action items that are focused on to still ultimately attaining a goal, at least if I'm understanding correctly. Perhaps a distinction would be that success is predicated on following the system and not attaining the goal... but at the same time if the end goal is not being attained but the system is being adhered to then it would inform the user that the system is failing, not the user, and thus the system needs to be adjusted. On the other hand, if the system is not being followed, the person needs to figure out why and follow it, but can't blame the system - they have to own up to not following through.
  6. I'm curious about this as well. I've had Atomic Habits on my birthday/Christmas wishlist for a couple years now but it has been overlooked, so I haven't read it yet, but I've heard this concept of systems vs goals before and I'm not sure I see the distinction. Perhaps it's akin to what I would refer to as the difference between behaviour goals and outcome goals. We can't directly control outcomes (i.e. drop xyz pounds, make X sales, etc.) But we can control behaviours (hit the gym, skip the sweets, talk to X people, ask for referrals, etc.) By leveraging behaviours associated with outcomes we move the needle by controlling what we can control. When we also fall short of our behaviour goals we can use these "failures" as good information gathering opportunities to learn what factors contributed to the lack of success one day or why on a different occasion we were successful. When sufficient info is collected it makes it easier to implement strategies to increase the success rate sticking to desired behaviours.
  7. If good data were actually kept on this then the comparison he is looking for would be possible. It should be a simple matter to track what treatments are given to whom and what outcomes happen. I realize that good data is sadly a big ask and definitely too much to wish for in the age of Covid stupidity where any option besides the vaccines is largely dismissed and the vaccines are held on a pedestal they don't deserve. One would think with the epic failures of the vaccines to prevent infection and transmission to the point that they are being touted as merely a tool for reducing more severe outcomes that other treatment options would be welcomed, but instead they are censored and every effort made to suppress data on whether such treatments help while the narrative is to continue to push the failed vaccines as the only way forward.
  8. I don't doubt that's part of it for sure, but even outside the USA it's a power grab by government going along with the profit motives. Can't let a good catastrophe go to waste. People are so willing to give up rights and freedoms it's alarming. Freedoms of speech and assembly have been under serious attack and people seem to favour it. Bodily autonomy is under attack and people are blind to consequences. While it would be nice to even say we just "follow the science" the practice of science has been undermined by profit motives and agendas as well and the organizations that are supposed to lend credibility by making position statements are quite likely the least trustworthy.
  9. I think it's also noteworthy that many different treatment options besides Ivermectin have been discovered that at the very least look promising, so even if Ivermectin weren't used other options are out there. Sadly, at the very least treatment has become politicized since Trump mentioned HCQ and the media couldn't let trump be right about something. And yet with this kind of paper available, it's hard to buy into HCQ having no effect: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32418114/ Budesonide has also shown great promise at keeping people from ending up in urgent care: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33844996/ Then there's this interesting look at melatonin and vitamin c and their effect on reducing cytokine storm for better outcomes https://www.evolutamente.it/covid-19-pneumonia-inflammasomes-the-melatonin-connection/ Anyway, it's too bad the FLCCC is not getting more attention as they have been/are on the front lines of bringing about critical care instead of just offering comfort. https://covid19criticalcare.com/about/
  10. Interesting review of Ivermectin Toxicity: TL:DR Ivermectin has been concluded to have an exceptional safety profile that is better than many over-the-counter meds available. No deaths have been attributed to Ivermectin use in humans, with it being widely available for nearly 40 years as a human prescription drug, and longer for veterinary use. That's not to say it shouldn't still be approached with caution, but it is certainly safe enough to try out.
  11. This is where things get pretty well impossible to compare effectively across time. We can't compare apples to apples because we are simply under different circumstances. The spanish flu had the opportunity to be spread by overstressed, overtired, undernourished soldiers coming home from war to all parts of the world under different guidelines and understanding than we have now. Today, while we didn't have to compete with soldiers coming home from a world war, we dealt with world travel on a scale never before seen to bring this to/from all parts of the world. But because we used the measures we did in our era and they used the measures they did in their era and the measures aren't identical and perhaps more important to the point of lethality neither were the treatments offered, we can't accurately determine if we did a better or worse job or were simply up against a more ferocious or more tame enemy.
  12. It's not just a problem in the USA. The problem lies in the fact that we've raised people to believe the day of reckoning will never come and so voting for fiscal responsibility isn't a priority. The fact of the matter is that cuts and austerity don't win elections so no party that wants to actually get in power seems able to pull this off.
  13. I don't believe the most recent statement to be doctrine of any kind. It has no direct bearing on salvation one way or the other whether one masks or vaccinates (and following the guidance of government and health authorities varies greatly by area), but it does make a difference if one follows the 1st Presidency's counsel. Prophetic counsel can simply be specific to a situation or individual without being canonized into any doctrinal umbrella. Consider counsel given to a leper to bathe in the River Jordan or other such acts (that were likely not necessary, but either bolstered faith or tested obedience) and yet they were never taught as something that others needed to do for healing, salvation, or anything else. However, these instances do showcase the outpouring of blessings available to those who follow the prophet, even in matters not tied to doctrinal teaching.
  14. It seems that if there had been a known safe and effective treatment than the vaccines couldn't have been given emergency use authorizations and the developers of those products would be out a lot of money waiting for properly vetted approval before a single shot could go into any arm and people couldn't be scared into taking them as much if an effective alternative were widely known to be available. The sad part about this is that it's not the first nor the last time that treatments for "vaccine-preventable" illness have been largely ignored. Since vaccines are never perfect, it only makes sense to still make sure that treatments are available for all those who become sick regardless of vaccination history. Yet, historically once vaccines are entrenched as safe and effective for a particular illness state, further research into treatments is greatly inhibited, even though eradication is the exception and not the rule.
  15. I don't see what you're seeing, but I'm happy to let it go. It's not my preference to make comparisons to Nazis, but as it was already done by others, I felt to simply point out that the comparison was not necessarily the same default Nazi calling as is so common as there are actually similar tactics in play and not just someone being butt hurt and thinking up a term to make an opposing party sound like the bad guy. Thanks for trying to help me understand. The closest I can come to seeing what I think you see is in the potential to reopen wounds among those with lived experience, but I don't suspect we have any of those in this discussion or who would see it. While I see some of the articles make the same assertions you have, they fail to expound any reasoning aside form saying so beyond the aforementioned lived experience piece. Either way, no further discussion of the matter will be useful for anyone, so let's end it amicably. Thanks again.
  16. I welcome an explanation of how pointing out similarities for the purpose of learning from history is insulting to prior victims. Instead of simply doubling down into a four-year-old-fit going back and forth between yes it does, no it doesn't, who can yell louder as your continued assertion that it's just so absurd comes across as, I truly welcome some actual dialogue to help me see how what you claim is so. Gavin Debecker has an interesting book called the gift of fear that is all about recognizing pre-incident indicators that have been recognized by reverse engineering the tell tale signs that were found to occur prior to sexual assaults. By teaching people about these indicators so they can avoid being victims of sexual assault, I can't begin to fathom how that is conflated to saying that the previous victims' experiences don't matter or the suffering wasn't real. It would seem a greater travesty to recognize tactics used by criminals and not bother to point them out keeping a higher proportion of new victims always available because no one could bother to learn from history and share the help. Now perhaps there is some inflammatory rhetoric you've experienced elsewhere in regards to this that you are bringing to this discussion, but I feel I've been nothing but respectful in pointing out commonalities of indicators (in this case used by government to make a section of the population into "deplorables", which is a requisite step for the actions taken against the Jews in the middle of the twentieth century to occur). I have not said the Jews didn't suffer. I have not called anyone a Nazi or Vazi. I have not said that the unvaccinated today have suffered in an equivalent manner to Holocaust victims. I have simply pointed out that there are similarities that warrant recognition as they are strikingly similar tactics being used by world leaders to demonize the unvaccinated right now as were used by the Nazis to make the Jews lose standing in German society *prior* to the atrocities perpetrated upon the Jewish people and others selected by those in power as undesirable members of society. If you can show me the blind spot in my reasoning, I'm open to learning.
  17. You're entitled to seeing it that way, but to me this is akin to taking the position that when a gunman walks onto a campus with loaded weapons we can't draw parallels from previous shootings until after people have become victims and are shot down. It makes more sense to me to recognize troubling indicators and take steps to prevent history from repeating itself as opposed to claiming there is no way a comparison should be made until an equal or greater cataclysm has taken place. It isn't at all suggesting that the holocaust victims didn't suffer immensely, nor diminish their stories. It is simply a comparison of how people were manipulated into going along with atrocities in relatively recent history to how similar tactics are being used now. Is it entitled whining to point out to a friend that her partner is using manipulative tactics that suggest he's an abuser and she should get out of the relationship before things get worse? Does it minimize other victims of abusive partners? No. It simply points out key indicators worth knowing to avoid that cycle being repeated if the warning is heeded.
  18. While I would prefer to agree with this statement there are some parallels worth considering. Things moved along a similar trajectory in the early years of the NAZI regime. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/1933-1939-early-stages-of-persecution/ There are certainly emergency powers being used around the world to shut down freedoms of assembly, speech, and a fully free press. Lockdowns influence all of these to an extent and social media censorship steps things up. As for ending democracy, there are certainly questions the world and many Americans have about the legitimacy of the last election in the USA. Perhaps it's not as overt as the German Chancellor's moves, but that may make things more sinister. Whether the election was a free and fair election or not, there is a serious problem when likely half the world thinks it was suspicious at best and stolen at worst. Is the power no longer vested in the people? It seems more like we have rulers than public servants in what's supposed to be the free world, but there may yet be hope to reclaim the broken system. At this point the science is clear that the available vaccines are not stopping infection or transmission of Covid-19 so to continue to blame the unvaccinated as a risk to anyone but themselves is preposterous, and yet here we are with people getting worked up into such a feverish frenzy that they agree the unvaccinated should lose jobs and become second-class citizens. Which mirrors 1930s Germany... Yikes... Is it really so unfair to look at history and see the striking resemblance? "Achtung, vaccine papers please"
  19. I can't help but think this is a terrible mischaracterization and not well thought through. I think you're a highly intelligent person and appreciate your thoughts, so in addition to the observation pointed out by @estradling75 in response to this I feel the need to point out what I see to be the inconsistencies here. First: Most people opposing lockdowns and forced injections for protection against a virus that is over 99% survivable, are not against protecting and saving lives from said virus, but are also aware that decisions around it don't live in isolation. Lockdowns come with an incredible cost of human lives through suicide and suffering in many forms such as mental health issues, financial stress, and so on. It's unclear that the risk/reward to society is in favour of ongoing lockdowns that aren't sustainable. They simply want the freedom to make their own health decisions and wish that information was presented in a clear unbiased way without censorship. Second: They do not want governments to use the maximum available powers to protect them from "potential" bad guys, but "known" bad guys. Most would also agree that even outside of this pandemic that it would be a good idea for sick people to stay home and get better. Disease has always been with us and always will be until we are loosed from mortality. Sure asymptomatic spread is a possibility, but it's less common. It makes more sense to focus on stopping known illness from spreading than stopping everyone from being able to go about their lives and pay their bills. Third: Protection from themselves is a nightmarish condition if allowed to go too far. Who gets to make those decisions of what is taking the proper steps for personal protection? Shall we force everyone to eat a whole foods diet and eliminate overprocessed junk foods to nearly eradicate heart disease and diabetes? Should everyone be forced to the gym? Should women found to be at genetic risk of breast cancer be forced to undergo prophylactic mastectomies? No more driving because a collision could occur? There are risks inherent to the human condition and people need to be allowed to make decisions on their own to navigate those risks.
  20. On a related tangent this reminds me of an argument I come across from time to time against pro-lifers. If they care so much about life why then do they also so often support capital punishment? I can only speak for myself, but suspect I'm not alone in my reasoning, is that those that I favour the idea of consequences for actions to those with the greatest responsibility in driving the decisions (i.e. if lady doesn't want a baby she shouldn't be sleeping around, and if a person doesn't want the death penalty they shouldn't kill or commit capital offences in their respective jurisdiction). The unborn are innocent and did not have a decision in the process that brought about the circumstance for which they are being terminated, the criminal did. Of course, that is just the logic side of my reasoning, but what trumps that is the fact that God has taught in favour against abortion and in favour of capital punishment under certain circumstances.
  21. I got a kick out of seeing that the first time as well. The sad part is it may not be as far-fetched as we want to believe with boosters and vaccine passports being pushed all over the place.
  22. Indeed. In fact, it raises the question of if the vaccines not being effective sterilizing agents (allowing viral infection and replication within the vaccinated) are not a causative factor leading to variants that are mutating in response to the vaccines, similar to how bacteria adapt to become antibiotic resistant. It certainly showcases the weakness of the greater good/ herd immunity argument that is always bandied about in these discussions as the vaccine is unlikely to lead to protection for others in light of this type of information. Also speaking of virus reservoirs, with the many animal reservoirs that appear to be available it's extremely unlikely we can ever vaccinate our way out of this as the virus supposedly already made the jump from animal to human transfer and can be found in cats, dogs, deer and more it can continue to mutate and recirculate back and forth between critters and people, so unless we get an actually effective sterilizing vaccine to also shoot up all the mammals the world over, we just need to learn to live with this.
  23. I appreciate your point of view and struggle with the position myself. It's my way (for now at least) to not have to deconstruct my testimony over this issue being at odds with my personal witness of the spirit as directed previously. I'm not saying that the prophet didn't put thought or prayer into the statement, but I can see how it could come across that way and I may just need to stop saying anything and keep it to myself as I don't want to be casting doubts, I'm simply sharing my own struggle and how I'm trying to hold true in the face of contradiction between church leadership and personal revelation. It could be counsel from God that doesn't apply to me, but that seems even more suspect to me than Russell M. Nelson simply falling back on personal biases through his medical training to favour this intervention (and I realize how that sounds like, "isn't this the carpenters son?" and I am probably the problem and need to figure out to get out of my own way). I mean there are any number of ways, I suppose, that one could justify why the counsel isn't what people think it is, or doesn't apply personally, but they are all problematic in one way or another as far as I can see. The problem for me is that on this topic, following the counsel as it is appears is also problematic given personal history and relationship with the spirit on the matter. Left with the choice between following the spirit or following the prophet, I'm following the spirit, but cautiously and trying to remain open to different avenues as I don't like doubting the prophet and have seen too many people go down what I perceive to be errant paths in the name of following personal revelation that contradicts the teachings of the church.