lonetree

In related news, 19 years ago today, the final episode of Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood aired. His final words to those kids are incredibly, almost prophetically, relevant to us today.  Everyone take a listen, and maybe see if you are as proud of yourself, as Mr. Rogers is of you.
 

I have nothing against her personally.  But if we are already looking to a thirty-two-year-old White House press secretary who’s only really been in the national spotlight for less than six months, and trying to shoehorn her into the vice presidency; then I think that sort of illustrates my point.  

I wonder whether anyone in the GOP today has the kind of intra- and cross-party luster that they can parlay into the presidency four years from now, that Reagan had in ‘76.  (Reagan’s convention speech that year positioned him as heir apparent before Ford had even left the White House.)
The GOP has been doing a splendid job of eating its own lately. . .

That’s why I haven’t been strident in predicting Trump’s loss this year, though things do seem to look pretty bleak at the moment.
I am inclined to think, though, that if he loses—conservatives and conservatism will be as vulnerable as they’ve been at any time since 2003; and maybe even since 1976.

During the campaign Harris will be the attack dog.  Biden can't get out of his own way, so the media will keep him out of the spotlight because Trump will destroy him.  Harris will mostly ignore Pence and campaign as though she is running for President.  She'll attack Trump relentlessly.   If Trump attacks her using the vulgarity he has in the past, then those attacks will be pushed by the media as misogynist and racist. 

It's their best plan, really,

I would counsel them to continue conversing exactly as they normally do. If that includes complimenting the current administration or identifying falsehoods others speak, go for it, and let the chips fall where they may. Better to be wrongfully cast out than to sit silently so as not to offend the taskmasters.

C-19 will largely die out eventually, when we get herd immunity and a vaccine.  Probably 2021.
 

...just in case she reads this board.
After the brave, brave stand taken by Lady A and The Chicks in removing the terrible words "Antebellum" and "Dixie" from their names, isn't it time you thought about YOUR name...Miss Twain? Twain is a five letter word with an "a" in it...like "slave"...and it even has an "i" in the same position as...Dixie?
See what I'm getting at, Miss Twain?
Also if you jumble up the letters of "Shania Twain"...and take some away...and add some others...you can spell out "General Lee". Rearrange them again, and add a few more, and take away some others and you can make "Ku Klux Klan" and "Uncle Remus". Do you really think no one's ever noticed that??? 
And on top of all that, you have the same surname as Mark Twain, who used the N-word in his books!
I suggest you quickly change your surname to Shania Blacklivesmatter, because black lives matter, and if you don't support Black Lives Matter then you clearly don't think that black lives matter, so you might just as well change your name to Adolf Hitler.
(Sorry to bring my ranting here. It's just that my family tell me they're sick of hearing about it.) 

The gods at Wikipedia seem to say otherwise . . . That Reagan’s polling was so good he basically chose an “above the fray” strategy and didn’t really campaign in earnest until he lost the Iowa straw poll.
I was, after all, alive then; as you are fond of reminding me.  

I haven’t been paying as close of attention as I probably ought, but . . .
What is happening tonight that I should blame Trump for?
I mean, you know well that I pretty much loathe the guy (wasn’t really impressed at his photo op at the church today, either).  But generally speaking I’m all for harshness with rioters and looters, and I’m not prepared to shed many years for biased reporters who were warned to stay out of a riot zone but went anyways.
What am I missing here?  What’s going on right now that is supposed to make me, as an ideological conservative, make an alliance with the folks who have started a hot race war in this country and who will be coming for my own head as soon as they’re done with Trump?

I wanted to add one more thought.  Too many Americans in my opinion think we need to jump to the 2nd Amendment first as a resolution against government tyranny.  I suggest using the soapbox, ballot box and jury box over and over without fail long before you rally to the gun magazine box.  I think the Founding colonists of America tried petitioning and working with the King of England for over ten years before resorting to a declaration of independence and war.  Thomas Jefferson believed the biggest hedge against tyranny was the impartial jury.

On Canadians and Americans, I found this 2005 article helpful. The writer is Robert Fulford, a Canadian journalist. There were a couple of places where he made me chuckle-the highlighting of Vincent Massey, and his story about the tv program he watched. The only reason I recognized Massey's name was because he was the bro. of the famous 1950s actor, not because of any time I'd spent on our country's history.
http://www.robertfulford.com/2005-11-17-anti-americanism.html
 
 

On Canadians and Americans, I found this 2005 article helpful. The writer is Robert Fulford, a Canadian journalist. There were a couple of places where he made me chuckle-the highlighting of Vincent Massey, and his story about the tv program he watched. The only reason I recognized Massey's name was because he was the bro. of the famous 1950s actor, not because of any time I'd spent on our country's history.
http://www.robertfulford.com/2005-11-17-anti-americanism.html
 
 

Just in case no one already knows this: Canadians are not Americans. They do not value the same freedoms Americans value. They have no problem regulating or even outlawing rights that they see as inconvenient, such as the right to bear arms or the right to speak your mind. As a nation, and with numerous individual exceptions, Canadians are not a freedom-loving people. They are a stringently politically correct people, very European in outlook.
In case any of you Americans don't have Canadian friends or relatives, you should know that Canadians generally look on Americans as foul ignoramuses. This is a generalization, but not an untrue or unfair generalization. Canadians, like Europeans, tend to be contemptuous of America and Americans. Keep that in mind when reading Canadian or European news, especially when it interfaces with the US or US interests.

This is a tyrannical response to a person dressed and was pretending to be a police officer and who also had a car made up to be like a police car, who murdered over twenty people in many different scenarios.  People would let down their guard because they thought he was law enforcement.  As we all know more citizen gun laws would not have stopped this evil murderer.  He died in a shoot out with Canada law enforcement.

But tyrants will continue to exercise their authority over their subjects and blame Canada citizens with privately owned firearms when all the blame should be placed on who did the killing.

We watch football. It's a great way for our family to bond and spend time together.
I grew up on a farm. We had to work on Sunday. Animals need fed and water, crops need taken care of. Calving season didn't stop for Sunday.  Dad had to get up extra early on Sundays to make it to church on time. It was never a day of rest.  

In my family, when it’s my birthday or Father’s day I get to choose the activities for that day. When it’s the Lord’s day, we should grant Him that same privilege.

What specifically counts as Sabbath-day keeping is very individual (well, better to say between you and the Lord).  What bring you and your family closer to Him and each other?
For some people, watching a football game is a wholesome family affair, and a great Sabbath day activity.  For others it's a bad activity because people rage or whatever.
For another example: I know some people whom don't cook on Sunday because they want the day "off" to rest-- great for them.  My daughter and I cook very fancy meals on Sundays as a Mommy-Daughter date-- that's great for us. 

Could it be that...leftist sociopolitics are intrinsically hostile to the message of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ?
Hmmm...

Jumping on for just a bit here:
I cannot understand the motivation behind the "after all means despite" argument.
For example, in the end of the interview Laura Hales says:
"Yet we still cannot in our social culture, dissolve the almost magnetic attraction of works to the discussion of salvation. We always need to tack on that, but you need the ordinances, but you need to endure to the end."
Well...yeah, Laura. That's a good thing, is it not?
What am I concerned with in the gospel? What should I be concerned with? That's what matters to me. It comes down to a simple question:
What do I need to do?
The objective here seems to be to push people further away from that question. That seems highly problematic. Why would we want to teach people to believe what they do is of no import?
Either that or the objective seems to be some sort of intellectual braggadocio.
This is the plain truth: "We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel." (emphasis mine).
We can wrest the scriptures all we want but this article of faith remains true.
Christ's is a works based gospel. Always has been. Always will be. The reality that we're saved by Grace doesn't change that, or really relate. I don't have a problem with the idea that we are saved by grace "despite" all we can do in an of itself. The idea is correct. We cannot save ourselves. But I know of no one in the church that I've ever met or heard of that believes the Atonement of Christ was unnecessary because we can save ourselves. If anyone did believe that they'd clearly be in a state of severe apostasy.
Nevertheless, the "tack on" idea that we need the ordinances and to endure to the end is obviously of paramount importance. Isn't our prophet constantly pushing us to be concerned with being on the covenant path? Are we not saved through the Atonement of Christ by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel? Are we not commanded, accordingly, to repent, serve, preach, sacrifice, etc, and make and keep covenants? And if we don't do such is not our salvation forfeit?
So why the drive to push people's thinking in a different way? I seriously can't understand the...how was it put....rhetorical need behind this argument.

At the national level, pretty much everyone is an idiot.
I do consider it my civil duty to vote, which usually goes to the person whom seems to be the lesser idiot / corrupt. 
I would love it if there was a way to simple vote for individual values / stances on specific issues.  Unfortunately, in the USA there is not.

You mean, like, a good cop and a bad cop?
It’s not that he doesn’t like POTUS; it’s that he doesn’t like (conservative?) religious people.

Just a few verses earlier Nephi says: 20 And now, my brethren, I have spoken plainly that ye cannot err.       And yet here we are. 😆
The way I see it this is not about one correct principle and one incorrect principle but rather two correct principles but trying to figure out which one the writer/speaker was specifically referring to. But I have another question for you @maklelan regarding footnotes. Using this verse as an example the footnote to the word "do" takes us to James 2:24 which says "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." To me it would be a little confusing to have this verse connected directly to another that says "despite all we can do." So if in translation you change a verse away from the then commonly understood interpretation do you also have to change the footnotes as well?

There are many who can instinctively feel when there is a wolf in sheep's clothing.  The problem today is that many of these are doing 1 of 2 things.
1.  They are trying to be good historians.  They are gathering primary and secondary sources in a good historical method.  They are trying to write the history in a way that recounts the Church's history from a good historical background.  The problem with this is that EVERYONE get's equal footing.  They get equal say, those who hate the church and those who loved the church.  Unfortunately, over the years, those who were trying to take down the church have more evidence on their side than those who spoke for the church.  This leads to a preponderance that says the church is false.  The personal stories of Joseph Smith and others around him and from his time that WERE good members are ignored because the majority are against him.
If one wants to be a good historian, this is what the evidence will tell them.  AS Church historians, they can't say that.  Thus, they try to ride the balance between what a good historian would do, and the traditional story of the church.  This is trying to appease both sides, but in reality appeasing neither one. 
The other problem with this is instead of giving the benefit of the doubt to Joseph Smith and those who were on his side and trying to interpret things as per HIS viewpoint (Accept that his opinion is the basis of the true story and take everything from there) they take it from the viewpoint that he lied.  Instead, they take the preponderance of evidence as telling the real story which, unfortunately is anti-Mormon generally.
Thus, we have the really weird and strange place that Church history is today where the revisionist are trying to rewrite it (for example, why write Saints as the new official Church history when we ALREADY HAD one, and it had better sources from a historians viewpoint) and change it to appease more to those who already hate the church.  This is a flawed take.  They are never going to convince those who are anti-Mormon to agree with them, nor are they going to get historians to think it is good history (you can't do good history with the technique they are doing).  Sure, it is more accurate than it was before, but at the cost of taking the viewpoint that Joseph Smith did more of his actions because he was a man rather than a Prophet of God.
2.  They lost their testimony overall.  They still have fragments of it which they are trying to reconcile with the gospel, but they also disbelieve the idea that Joseph and prophets from the 19th and the 20th centuries were really inspired.  Thus, they discount things and revelations from them and rewrite them as racism, sexism, and many other things in an attempt to appeal to modern audiences.  The truth...they will NEVER appeal to modern audiences in the way they think they are.  By detracting from the prophets of the Early Church they only diminish the viewpoint of the modern prophets.
Most believing members will not discount that the Prophets are men.  It is obvious.  However, the efforts today by those who lost their testimony but are still in the Church employ or working for the Church (supposedly) to discount earlier revelations and prophets I think it will only lead to more confusion and falling away rather than helping people stay firm in their testimony.
-----------------------------------------------------------
As I said, from a historian's viewpoint form the outside looking in at what is happening in the Church History departments today...you have wolf in sheep's clothing there and it puzzles me why the Church is moving so far along with them.  They think that by balancing between secular and traditional history they are keeping members, but I only see them as being catalysts to drive members leaving at this point.  There are those that take anything they write and believe it, but there are many others that are on one side or the other...and by trying to go between the two, they are going to appeal to neither.  It is better to appeal to the believing audience (and my real personal beliefs in the gospel and religion), then to try to appease those that will never be appeased to begin with (The secular world).  You aren't going to convince me (my secular practice of history) or any other secular organization, much less those who don't like the church to begin with, with the current approach.  It is better to teach to the living than the dead.  I'll accept the religious history as coming from Joseph Smith, John Taylor and others from their own testimonies and mouths than a lot of this revisionist stuff coming out today.  On my secular side...the secular world was already closed on that account and nothing the church does is going to convince them of the divine nature of the gospel or the church.
I am a believer, but I do not try to reconcile my belief with what the secular world sees as facts.  I cannot.  However, I truly believe and know that Joseph was a Prophet and those that followed him are as well.  I know the Book of Mormon is true and the gospel is true.  No secular knowledge will ever lead me there, only the Holy Ghost and the Lord.

Because the two positions represent the opposite sides of a fierce debate that has been going on for millennia. Either "all we can do" plays a role in grace or is does not.