SpiritDragon

I care a great deal what my wife thinks of me. I also care what my children think of me. To a slightly lesser extent, I care what my siblings and close cousins think of me. I care what my bishop thinks of me, and my fellow quorum and ward members. I do care what close friends think of me. In a different sense, I care what my boss thinks of me, and what my landlord/landlady think of me (us). I don't really much care what Seattle leftists think of me, though I prefer to fly under their hateful, intolerant radar. In general, I don't care very much what society at large thinks of me, so long as I don't get beat up in the halls or prevented from worshipping God and rearing my family as I see fit.
But mostly, I care what God thinks of me. Except he never tells me.
I believe the "I no longer give a darn what others think" refers primarily to the last sentence in my first paragraph. Most of humanity lives under a sort of common set of social expectations. Today, those social expectations include supporting a woman's "right" to terminate her fetus' life and the obvious beauty and necessity of "protecting" (read: promoting) the homosexual lifestyle. Since I support neither of these things (and violate many other terms of the unwritten social expectations list), I am on the outside. I'm not in the Cool Kids' Club. And I'm okay with that. I Don't Care. I don't give a darn what they think of me, so long as they leave me my essential liberties.
I also think the "I no longer give a darn what others think" refers in a deep, foundational way to the first sentence of my second paragraph. I want to please my Father and my Savior. If I could know their will perfectly, I would strive to live it, consequences be damned. I will choose them before friends and family, even before my children and my wife (though reluctantly—I guess I would secretly still give a darn what they thought).
In any case, I don't think "I no longer give a darn what others think" is flipping the bird to the rest of the world at large. I think it is a statement of priority.

Ehhhhhhh.....the Book Of Mormon tells us differently.  If you believe the BOM, but don't believe in conspiracies you don't really believe the BOM.
 

I thought they already did that, frankly.  One of the reasons I didn’t pursue academia was that I only would have wanted to work at BYU; and given my own struggles with porn, I didn’t want my secular livelihood to depend on my current worthiness to hold a temple recommend.
(Although, if it has hitherto been possible to be an LDS BYU professor without holding a current temple recommend, then that would explain a lot.  A whole lot.)

Yes, you have heard of anti-discrimination clauses right? Is a employer able to not employ a gay person just because they are gay? No.
Does an employer have the freedom not to employ women because they are women? Or will there be a lawsuit where the employer will pay out for the discrimination?
The same way an employer is not able to make a decision and demand knowledge if you have an STD and if you do he/she is not able to say sorry you can't be employed here.
The same way, if you rent your house you can't say to someone who drinks or smokes that you can't rent my house because you drink or smoke -- although it is your "private" home.
The same way a loan officer is not able to say to a Latino, or someone of a different culture, I can't serve you because you are [insert culture], but if I do I will charge you 2% more for the cost of the loan.
If a business, private, had the freedom you say to serve none of these laws would exist.
If you agree that an employer has the freedom to not employ a gay person because they are gay, or any of the above scenarios are OK and should not be regulated by law, then I will acquiesce my thoughts -- pertaining to your thoughts -- because you are consistent.

I probably know 100 folks who are anti COVID vax, the vast majority are right wing.  I have yet to hear a single one of them say a private business should not be able to implement their own mandate and fire anyone who refuses the shot.  There's no end of griping about businesses choosing to do such a thing, but pretty much everyone understands it's their right to do it.
Here is a list of things I do see anti-vax folks doing:
- I know one person who quit his job because they were talking mandates, and went to work for another company that wasn't.
- My wife has heard of several in the medical and nursing fields who have quit over company mandates, only to be quietly hired back later.
- I have a buddy who runs a consulting firm, who is asking every contact he has "if someone is ticked off or fired because of the vaccine, send them my way and I'll hire them".  If his firm grows to 99 people, he'll start a second firm.
- I know 3, and have heard of dozens more, anti vax folks who just knuckled down and got the jab, to keep their jobs.  I can accept their principled stands against mandatory jabs, and their practical choice to not give up their paycheck.  

As to my studies and experiences here are items my mind's eye ponders:
1. Is this really a right or wrong scenario, or can both be right?
2. The contrast depend on the doctrine.
3. What have the scriptures taught regarding contrasting revelations?
4. What is the written counsel in comparison with verbal counsel?
The first is simply recognizing that both can be right, especially when the Prophet -- at this time -- is the Prophet for the whole world. In that light, he gives counsel to all members who are within socialists and other forms of government. I think the Prophet, in our day, is in the most peculiar situation than any other prophet. We teach the Article of Faith #12 and the Church abides by this, especially for members in Communist countries.
The second is recognizing what counsel/doctrine does personal revelation contrast? If a person received revelation that SSM is good (just an easy doctrine to contrast), the doctrine is pretty clear on that. It doesn't require a deep poignant thought to recognize where that personal revelation came from. It isn't the Lord. In another thread another easy one is the personal revelation that the Book of Mormon isn't the word of God, which is in clear contrast/opposition to what the Lord actually said he would do. If a brother said they received revelation that having sex before marriage, with future wife the day before wedding, was his will...well, again, we can clearly see that isn't going to be the case and the personal revelation was not from God.
The third brings up Nephi and Laban. If our personal revelation truly appears to contrast doctrine/counsel from the prophet, then like Nephi, we have every right to further witness from the Lord to know that our witness is truly from him. As imperfect beings, we are all still learning the principle of revelation and our revelation is not always perfect. I remember receiving a revelation that something would happen 9 years from that date. It is 5 years past that date and nothing happened. I never told anyone because I wasn't sure myself. I just kept it to myself. But as sons and daughters of God we have every right to request further light and knowledge, further witness like Nephi, in these situations so we can move forward with confidence -- while ignoring the finger of scorn of others.
As with President Nelson's invitation/counsel, it compliments and contradicts the Handbook. What is written, verses what is verbally spoken. The Handbook specifically tells us to take the matter to the Lord, personally revelation. In that light, they compliment. The invitation is to take the vaccine and the Handbook says to make it a matter of prayer and personal revelation. As this is something that can actually harm my body (its not the same as the Word of Wisdom), and it reacts differently to each individual, the counsel for personal revelation trumps the invitation if God says, "Don't, it isn't for you." The invitation/counsel in the Handbook pretty much follows Doctrine and Covenants 9:8-9.

I suggest keeping a journal for your own benefit.  Often our impressions of our thoughts (personal revelation) evolve over time.  I would reference a talk by Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf.  When there is not a sure reference people tend to travel in circles rather than a straight line.  I believe this happens with personal revelation as well.  If there is not a immovable reference point there is a tendency to drift off course and become lost - meaning you are not positioned as you think you are.
I believe this is a problem with COVID as well.  Our political leaders have no point of reference and as correct as they think their are - their direction is quite confusing.
 
The Traveler
 

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.

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.

In light of a previous conversation SpiritDragon, this type of bill that appears to have been removed, due to the backlash received, is in part why I contemplate if President Nelson's vaccine invitation is for this type of government action also (an attempt to keep the members safe): A.416. The vague definition of "temporary" and other factors within this bill are truly scary and how easily the natural man (corrupted man) could use this for evil purposes.

Thank you. As I'm in Software Testing, my first thought of "systems" leaned me to thinking it was like a module in a software program. The modules are the systems that run the programs, and the programs are developed for a specific end goal.

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.

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.

Generally speaking, we would call them the same, but the book makes the distinction between the two.
Goals:
- Have a 6-pack
- Make $100,000
- Run a marathon
- lose 50 lbs
- Read 25 books
Systems:
- set an alarm every morning for 6am and exercise
- call 15 potential clients every day before I can have lunch to try and sell them my product
- Run 1 mile every night right when I get home from work
- meal prep every Saturday 
- listen to audible while I run and exercise. 

@Fether Can you describe the difference between a system and a goal, and an example of what that might look like? Right now it appears like a great idea but more a semantic paradigm.

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.

The first part of your statement is the crux of all the data. Data, stats can be easily manipulated toward narrative. I place little trust in statistics with regards to a pandemic that has been politically and narrative motivated. There isn't many places you can trust, as you read the article and the bias comes outwardly clear.
Similar to Joe Rogan and how the media and many others, even on here, followed narrative rather than recognizing the treatment that helped. But the narrative and vax (although people are still dying with the vax) is more important than treatment.

Manowar.
Heavy metal band best known for their Viking war anthems and for having once set a record for loudest concert. 
This is literally the most divine version of the song I've ever heard. 

@SpiritDragon I seriously considered posting that version on Sunday.

My favorite Pavarotti Christmas song.
 

Daaaaang @SpiritDragon - that's a deep voice right there.

This is false. I would rather JAG jump in here and respond, but until he does, I can't just let such a counterfactual statement stand without response.
Roe v. Wade is based on an intentional twisting of the so-called Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The tortuous reasoning taken by Blackmun et alia was that the Constitutionally unspoken but widely recognized "right to privacy" protects a woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy. Yet these same justices then proceeded to specify that, bizarrely, the rules for this "right-to-privacy abortion" actually change during the pregnancy, being unlimited in the first trimester but increasingly subject to limitations in the second and third trimesters. (Unsurprisingly, the Supreme Court subsequently overturned this arbitrary trimester system.)
The Church did not approve of any of this so-called reasoning, either overtly or behind the scenes. The Church made it clear that it considered elective abortion to be a grave sin and akin to murder.
So no, the Church absolutely did not "actually AGREE with the original Roe Vs. Wade arguments". If you continue to maintain this, I invite you to submit some evidence for this extraordinary claim.
Does anyone ever realize "the full ramifications" of any major change in law or social interaction? Such a thing is impossible for mortal humans. The best we can do is to identify correct principles and then try to live by them. Saying "This here is the right thing to do, but I'm afraid if we do it then bad things might happen" is not a reasonable course of action for a Saint, or for that matter any other honest person.

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"