SpiritDragon

I've often wondered about this very thing as well. As I don't want to air all manner of dirty laundry beyond the concerns I've already expressed, I'll simply state that this is the latest in a string of concerns that I'm having a harder time accepting. I'm afraid if a new revelation in the way of homosexual acceptance or possibly even women holding priesthood offices were to come out it would likely be the final nail in the coffin of my ability to push to believe and doubt my doubts. This just seems to me that the Saviour was frequently found among the lepers and the unclean, but that the current earthly church leadership is unnecessarily sowing divisions and creating the groundwork where those who have already followed the counsel to seek personal revelation on this matter and arrived at a different conclusion will be viewed as unfaithful for not being vaccinated. Perhaps there's a greater play at work beyond what I can see. I'm certainly not perfect and am more than capable of being mislead as well. I just don't see how this counsel helps anyone as church reopens (My ward just reopened fully and we've attended one time prior to this announcement which may mean we are back to worshipping from home without authorization to have a sacrament service) It also raises concerns about which way the sifting will occur. I know the standard mantra in the church is to stick with the brethren, but what if the real test is to see who will follow personal revelation even when it seems to contradict the church establishment? In Abrahams test he was being asked to sacrifice his son, Nephi to kill Laban, these go against the commandment not to kill, but were the right thing to do as directed by the spirit. I'm not saying people should leave the church either, so please don't misconstrue my intent. I'm just voicing thoughts and trying to adapt. I've felt as strongly with my answer on these vaccines as I did when I received my witness of the Book of Mormon, so to see the brethren practically come out and say my personal revelation is wrong is disheartening for sure. Perhaps no one at church will ask, but I'm concerned this is the beginning of a new requirement for church attendance which will force a decision one way or the other for sure. It's not my first or last test of faith, it's just the latest. You're right though, these matters are highly personal and no one can really do much from the sidelines. Listening and praying is appreciated.

While you are absolutely correct, and in fact these vaccines are incapable of producing herd immunity as they can't stop infection and spread and are likely driving the variants of concern as the virus adapts to incomplete vaccine immunity by mutating to evade the subpar immune effort mounted in the vaccinated, the sad fact is that the first presidency is not using immunization in this context as they are urging members to go get vaccinated and not to look after their immune health by getting good sleep and following the word of wisdom. What's also sadly lacking in this communication is reference to personal revelation. It's not even a message of hope if the only protection is vaccines that are failing all over the place. That's not to say that they don't appear to be curbing Covid in some ways, but there is so much break-through infection (read: vaccine failure) that we can't call covid a vaccine preventable illness. There is no mention of therapeutics and such that have been shown to actually help reduce transmission and effectively treat the disease itself, even among those who were vaccinated but not protected.

I'm happy it's working out for you and hope you are happy and on the right path. I will continue to soul search as I've done most of my life. The Church seems to be the correct vehicle and certainly seems more sound than other alternatives in the religious and areligious realm to me. I know it's comprised of imperfect people including those in leadership positions at the highest levels, save the Lord himself, so I can't expect perfection.

That and the bigger concern for me is this phrase: Since when does prophetic counsel defer to the corruption of the government leaders and medical experts? (and which experts and governments? there are multiple viewpoints that are not in agreement) What happened to trusting in the Lord and not the arm of flesh? I'll continue to fast and pray, but I haven't felt that this is the answer for me and my family. I'm admittedly struggling to believe the 1st presidency is inspired and speaks for the lord at all these days. I don't know if that means that the church is false and always has been, if it means that our current leadership is just making some blunders and in time the church will right itself, if I'm listening to the wrong spirit and can't trust personal revelation or something else altogether, but I don't like it. I've been struggling to reconcile this since the handbook alterations and conference moment, but have accepted the following the guidance of the spirit part. More and more it seems that the spirit is being diminished and the opinions of man being held up. It doesn't inspire confidence. I've been studying Isaiah lately and been finding Gileadi's commentary really helpful in this process. I'm not sure what to make of this yet, but this is seeming more and more to me like it's happening before my eyes:

I completely understand where you are coming from. I know that as I often post the counter position to the pro-vaccine narrative that I must be considered quite the anti-vaxxer, and yet I don't consider myself as such (In fact, aside from never taking flu shots and having concerns about covid vaccines being too early to tell and one-sided in reporting, I'm fully vaccinated aside from tetanus boosters after a bad reaction leaving my arm in a state of paralysis for a week following my last booster 20+ years ago). My position has always been that of pushing for informed consent where we have better information to work with and don't have to be worried about medical tyranny forcing any procedure on any individual or group, it needs to be a voluntary decision made based on the best available evidence (including the risks that don't get their due attention). This current vaccine push does appear to be opening others eyes to how the information is presented works in favor of one authorized outcome which is sadly not new in the world of vaccines. The messaging is always "safe and effective" downplaying vaccine reactions, injuries and deaths while up-playing disease risks and complications. Consider that throughout this pandemic anyone with Covid at the time of death could have been documented as a covid death, even if they didn't die of covid. This unnecessarily inflates the numbers making it appear more dangerous than it is. On the flip side, vaccine reactions are only passively monitored through VAERS where they should be followed up on with better data analysis than it is capable of providing (as though they don't really want to know about problems) and then simply considered unverified and probably only a temporal association. When disease rates come down after vaccination campaigns correlation is causation, but when adverse events go up with the campaign correlation is not causation. It certainly continues to breed mistrust when now that vaccines are out that diagnostic criteria are changing and how covid deaths are reported and recorded are changing, so that by changing definitions we can make the disease less problematic. It ultimately means that we can't compare apples to apples and have junk data. You may find this a worthwhile watch:

Simply to showcase that concerns aren't unreasonable based on numbers people see I am sharing the following. I don't know what to make of the contrast of these numbers with what @NeuroTypical has presented for New Jersey, but Massachusetts appears to be telling a different story. Perhaps they have different metrics for collecting numbers, or different vaccines or dominant covid strains? I don't have the answers right now, but I totally understand people not simply buying into the narrative of vaccines are safe and effective when we get these kinds of conflicting results and one side tends to be censored so as not to alert the population of the concerns and failures. Based on the numbers presented by NT clearly vaccines appear to be making a huge difference in NJ and I wouldn't fault anyone for wanting to ascertain that protection. On the flip side we have numbers like this out of Massachusetts (Cued to the sound of the Beegees : https://usafacts.org/visualizations/covid-vaccine-tracker-states/state/massachusetts https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/30/cdc-study-shows-74percent-of-people-infected-in-massachusetts-covid-outbreak-were-fully-vaccinated.html What we are seeing here is that in a population with around 72% who have one dose of vaccine at least and 64% are fully vaccinated, that same 64% who are fully vaccinated are making up 74-75% of the new covid cases. Of interest: With asymptomatic breakthrough infections being likely to be underreported that means almost certainly the actual percentage of cases is even higher still among the vaccinated than the unvaccinated. At the very least, one would hope to see that the new case percentage was lower than the vaccinated percentage in the population as this would still indicate protection, but this paints the picture of the vaccine being a statistical wash at best for preventing disease (and the spread of it as the vaccinated are still contagious to others) and at worst making people more vulnerable to infection than they would be if not vaccinated because the documented percentage of new cases is 10% higher among the vaccinated population than it should be without intervention. Perhaps it's a statistical anomaly, but it is understandably concerning to those who would take a more cautious approach to injecting foreign matter into their bodies that haven't been fully vetted. Ahh but it's really just the serious cases we care about... In this case, 80% of those being admitted to hospital were fully vaccinated (I'm curious if the other one was partially vaccinated or unvaccinated, but I don't see that info). This matches pretty closely with what would be expected from 3/4 of the cases had nothing been done. Now I can't explain the differences in what's going on in Massachusetts compared to New Jersey, but I think it's worth being aware of different data sets that people are seeing and clearly formulating opinions of which are better based on preconceived biases, which is human nature.

Yeah. This is unfortunate when we take the position of greater worthiness over personal decisions. Medical procedures can easily be right for one and wrong for another and there is no reason to get upset with each other over such things. Getting the vaccine is not essential to salvation and I don't think that getting it is going to lead to damnation either.

I think for many this is problematic. As others have mentioned it seems entirely possible that seeking to listen to the spirit and seeking to listen to a doctor can be at odds with each other, so who to listen to? I'd choose the spirit, but on such a heated topic that may be problematic in and of itself because people may convince themselves the answer they "want" is from the spirit whether that is for or against the treatment. While I have had heard of some doctors giving advice to certain people not to get vaccinated, I think others will be afraid to give such counsel even if they feel it is the correct course of action. I believe it was @Vort who mentioned how doctors generally carefully follow standard of practice guidelines set forth by governing health bodies, so for one they are discouraged from thinking for themselves outside of the decided upon approved treatments that aren't always the best options available. They also need to fear losing jobs over making perfectly reasonable assessments that go outside of what the governing organizations want to push. This article shows an example of a professional being "cancelled" for daring to speak out on the topic of informed consent and vaccines https://sharylattkisson.com/2021/06/censored-pro-vaccine-doctor-francis-christian-over-covid-19-vaccine-safety-concerns/. Informed consent should be a cornerstone of any doctor/patient treatment transaction and should not be controversial. But for reasons that seem to come down to greed (power, control, money) even a fundamental principle such as this comes under attack if it could possibly stop people from lining up and rolling up sleeves. It seems to be the same reason that other treatments have to be attacked as well, because otherwise the emergency use authorization of the vaccines would be pulled and money would be lost for vaccine manufacturers: https://www.biznews.com/thought-leaders/2021/05/12/mailbox-ivermectin?fbclid=IwAR1wMMcth7nZ2pZcc_V2NaLt4BFamAIcclnMPQs-51kMV_O95mmyZNbzyhM (just one example) So the problem comes down to not really feeling great about putting trust in the arm of flesh when so much of the medical-industrial complex and the bought off media continue to push narratives in one direction only while censoring and grasping for any reason to naysay anything that goes contrary to that narrative regardless of what evidence shows. And even there, an appeal to "science" is really convoluted as a stand alone argument because it still comes to a religious belief in what "science" is valid science and what is not. Take nutrition for instance, It seems clear to me that a close to fully whole food plant-based diet is closest to the word of wisdom and best for overall health and there are many experts who would agree with me with plenty of data to back it up. However, in religious fashion there are also many low-carb believers who also have what appears to be evidence on their side (I personally don't think it's great evidence, but many of them do) Both sides can get into big arguments over why the other's science is wrong and using cherry-picked data.

I understand your frustration. The funny thing about gas prices is it is all relative and it seems someone always has it better and someone always has it worse. I just came home from paying $1.40 per liter (basically 1/4 gallon, so $5.60ish per gallon) and that's because Costco has "nice" gas prices to beat the $1.50+ everywhere else in the city. Still, there are far worse prices in other parts of the country, so while I miss the days of sub-dollar-per-liter gas, I'm glad it's not worse. It's also frustrating because we drill and refine oil in the province, but still pay a premium.

Wishing you all the best. I'm sorry to hear you're going through a rough patch. I'd be happy to listen and act as a sounding board as well, but it sounds like you may have that covered.

Naturally, it's the Ministry of Truth and the thought police... A reasonable person voicing reasonable concerns about the only treatment we're supposed to know about and want is intolerable and must be censored.

Too often the yummiest dishes are this way and when following a recipe it just doesn't turn out quite right, there's something magical about the just knowing the right amounts in the moment based on ingredients on hand! Hopefully yours transfer well into recipes though! Maybe I'm just not good at getting things written down accurately or following other's directions.

The moderators should really look into this MG/NT sock puppet thing

@Vort I look forward to reading these posts in greater detail as I get time. I've only skimmed and may have missed some important notes and if so, disregard my desire to help as being redundant. I was noting your stomach pains after eating following not eating for around a week and was wondering if you are familiar with refeeding syndrome. I don't think you've experienced it, but it is a possibility to be familiar with. I personally never fast longer than 48 hours just to be safe since I can't be bothered to do a medically supervised fast. I'm sure most of the time a week or so is great. Anyhow, refeeding syndrome can be fatal and I'd hate for you to pass on prematurely. Some primary concerns are electrolyte imbalances and a cascade of inadequate nutrition to properly metabolize food wherein by introducing food while specific nutrients are low (but the need for them is high to deal with the incoming food) it creates a situation where eating actually creates a greater need for nutrients (a key one being vitamin B1/thiamine) and can begin a cascade of unwanted effects such as organ failure and even death. Please undertand I am not trying to dissuade you from long fasts, but just want you to be aware of some risks and possibly work with a trusted advisor/do your own research to take appropriate precautions.... you may not intend to get that close to the Lord from your fasting just yet. https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/30/refeeding-syndrome-dont-forget-thiamine-deficiency https://www.healthline.com/health/refeeding-syndrome

I had that same thought!

Way to go!

I'm glad you recovered from your heart attack. Sorry I dropped off the map. I have way less time to spare for checking into this group and I wasn't convinced I was doing anyone any good anyway. Now a year later, have you maintained the weight loss and near vegan diet?

Splitting hairs or not, I think questions like this help lead to deeper understanding of principles. Too often, I think, we as a church culture are too prone to accepting basic levels of understanding as all there is to know and discourage deeper study as reaching off into the fringes and not focusing on what is "essential/pertinent to salvation". While certainly too much time can be spent on studying pet topics, this to me, does not seem like one of those at all. How much more critical to the plan could it be than to try and understand the deeper implications and importance of resurrection. If I get any other thoughts on the matter, I'll run them past you.

@laronius These are indeed some fascinating thoughts. Thanks for sharing. Some musings to consider: Moses 1:11 But now mine own eyes have beheld God; but not my natural, but my spiritual eyes, for my natural eyes could not have beheld; for I should have withered and died in his presence; but his glory was upon me; and I beheld his face, for I was transfigured before him. D&C 67:11 For no man has seen God at any time in the flesh, except quickened by the Spirit of God. 3 Nephi 28:15 And whether they were in the body or out of the body, they could not tell; for it did seem unto them like a transfiguration of them, that they were changed from this body of flesh into an immortal state, that they could behold the things of God. Could it be something as simple as needing to be in an immortalized state to enter the presence of God for the judgment to take place? One could certainly speculate as to why it might have been that we could withstand the Father's presence in the premortal realm as spirit bodies, but could not following mortal life, but there would be very little to go on that's firmly rooted in doctrine I think at that point.

As for the green tea in supplements issue I have often wished that more clarification be given on that front, but I can see why leaving it to individual agency is also a fine idea. I can see the argument from both sides. On the one hand, it is an extract from a particular plant, but not the plant itself, and not being used in the hot drink form, for what that's worth. In this way, it might really be looked at more like taking vitamin C which is also a component of tea. Usually, EGCG is the main compound being referred to as green tea extract and it can be found in other foods such as apples - so does the fact that it was extracted from green tea make it wrong to ingest in and of itself when it's no longer part of the tea? On the flip side, I completely understand the desire to avoid it as well. Modern revelation has made it clear that coffee and tea are what is referred to specifically by hot drinks, so even if it's not being had in a hot drink form it's still coffee or tea, at least insofar as say having an iced tea or frozen coffee treat. If it's processed, at what point does it (or is there a point) where it would no longer be coffee or tea? Might just be best to avoid it altogether. This position can be strengthened by the idea that for years caffeine was viewed as the culprit, but that may have been a case of members looking to scientifically validate what the lord has said and have nothing to do with what we've been commanded. To my knowledge, we have no specific chemical in coffee or tea that has been validated as the reason to avoid it, so in not knowing what components are the issue, perhaps it's best to avoid anything and everything to do with it. While I can understand both sides, I personally opt to avoid supplements with green tea extract or EGCG knowing it was most likely sourced from green tea, but sometimes it can be a real pain because it's in so many things and has caused me to have to find new sources as it's been added to formulations I used to use and enjoy.

I just want to commend both of you for sharing disparate positions and in humility working with each-other's responses. @Traveler this could have easily been a time to dig in and double down on your position, but instead you recognized the possibility that you have been operating with misinformation. @Grunt you could have easily gone down the path of calling @Traveler derogatory names along while bolstering your position with authoritative sources, but instead you gently put forth a separate set of facts that you have based your decisions on and let Traveler do with the information what he will. Well-played both of you!

Thanks for your reply JJ. Here is one of the articles I found after first hearing about 2A sanctuaries: https://www.theorganicprepper.com/second-amendment-sanctuaries/ I'm guessing I don't fully grasp what is actually going on with the dual sovereignty issue. I also gather I'm not alone in that, though.

From Wikipedia: There is a major political party in the United States and many mainstream media outlets that would seek to manipulate citizens into believing that they are racist simply by virtue of having a certain skin color. It's pounded in at every chance that they are privileged and racist even without knowing it. Dialogue is discouraged as rather than discussing what actions (that they can control and change) are racist, they simply need to bow down and accept it is so. There is a political ideology that is aligned with rewriting history to make the founding of your nation, which has been a beacon to the world about the greatest freedoms ever, is based in classism and racism. Yet a basic understanding of history should disprove such nonsense. The USA was based on the very ideals of freedom and equality. The very people and documents that have done more to promote freedom and equality in this world than any other are being rebranded as intentionally oppressive and abusive. The school system has been hijacked to fill the heads of the educated (lead to believe they are smarter on account of expensive indoctrination) with this nonsense leaving those who have learned actual history to be labelled as the uneducated... All the while denying these very "racists and bigots" stood up for the American dream and pushed for the very causes of equality and liberty they are painted as opposing. I could go on, but I'm sure everyone already has their opinions made, perhaps even putting truth over facts (is that a gaslight in it's own right? If one is actually a Caucasian male peasant, but their "truth" is that they're an Asian Princess... do biological, genetic, and fiscal facts actually matter? Did they gaslight themselves, or was it the people who let them buy into the delusional alternate "reality" by not fact checking them?) That brings up a whole other can of worms - what's with these partisan fact checkers who don't check facts at all but express opinions as fact? Are both sides guilty? Sure, but no doubt one is more so as @Traveler has suggested.

As it seems that the desire to restrict constitutional rights grows stronger and deeper I found it refreshing to learn that there are counties and states that are establishing practices to defy federal gun restrictions deemed unconstitutional. As I'm not an expert on the US system of governance, I have some questions: My understanding is that the states having their own sovereignty are granted the ability to enforce or not enforce federal laws - which makes sense for them to be able to stand in defiance of federal laws at a state level. On the county level do they have a similar sovereign power to choose to not enforce federal laws, even if the rest of the state does? If the state itself passes laws that are unconstitutional do individual counties have grounds to defy state laws, or if they choose to do so are they pretty well going rogue and asking for trouble? Finally, what are your thoughts on establishing 2A sanctuary counties and states?

This is fascinating for the history lesson that goes with it. I watched five minutes in and I'm questioning what version of the hobbit they found as it's so inaccurate it's painful. I might actually prefer to listen to by newborn cry and miss out on sleep than watch the last five minutes... but at some point I know I will because I'm fascinated by the very existence of this unfortunate production