zil

This was why I added the bit about how sometimes I think you're saying the opposite of what you're actually saying - I'm not ignoring anything; I'm just not understanding your words the way you intend me to understand them. It's not deliberate on my part. I can misinterpret your point because I don't know you, I'm not in your head, I'm a different person with different understandings, I use different phrases than you or say things in a different way, etc. etc. - people sometimes misunderstand each other and it takes time and effort for them to understand each other. That doesn't mean either is being willfully vague, obtuse, or anything else - it just means they don't understand each other yet. I agree with you that if God ever tells us to disobey the law of the land, then we do as God says. And if that was what you were trying to say all along, then we agree completely.

Speaking of radioactive... Once upon a time, in some forum, in a conversation about good envelopes for protecting paper, someone jokingly suggested using "uranium envelopes" - this turned out to be downright inspiring. I purchased the domain "uraniumenvelopes.com", quickly put together a site, and then posted back pretending to be upset at all those people who thought uranium envelopes were a joke. I no longer own that domain (so don't try to use the email address links on the site, they don't work anymore; also, the form doesn't work anymore), but if you have a weird sense of humor, you might enjoy the site. It is available here: http://paradoxcommunity.com/UE/

TFP: I'll put it another way: I don't know whether all those people had a scripture as explicit as D&C 58:21. I don't know what the laws of the land were for those people. I don't know whether the command to be subject to rulers extends to conquering rulers or not. Without that knowledge, I'm not prepared to say (or agree that) they violated the laws of the land (rightly or wrongly) nor that they violated the laws of God - I just plain don't know, and whether they did is between them and God (I can only assume that what they did was right). Yes, I can learn from the scriptures about them, but I'm pretty sure I'm not supposed to learn from Nephi's story when it is / is not OK to behead someone, nor from Ammon's story when to threaten the life of the president. You're talking about prophets (or near equivalents) and their associates - that's not me; you're talking about situations I'm never going to come close to being in. I thought the point was whether we ought to obey the law of the land, and it seems perfectly clear to me that the Lord has said he expects us to. And since he did so in something as explicit as D&C 58:21 and that Article of Faith, I think He's not likely to change that expectation without the change being communicated just as explicitly (which won't come through me, but through a prophet, if it ever comes at all). It also seems to me that you're trying to say, without explicitly saying it, that we don't have to obey the law of the land ("right now" implied, or maybe "don't necessarily have to"). Maybe that's not what you're trying to say (sometimes my interpretation of your words turns out, eventually, to be the exact opposite of what you mean, and it takes a dozen re-wordings for us to figure that out; other times, I understand perfectly what you're trying to say; I have no idea which this is, yet).

redundification removed

TFP: Personally, it sounds to me like you're dancing around the issue. You aren't Nephi, you didn't live then. What another culture, another people (with or without the Gospel among them), another time, etc., etc. did is not especially relevant for me and you right now. And there is no earthly way to reconcile all these different times and cultures into one 2-sentence rule. Right now, I am 100% certain that God expects me to be "subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." I have no need to break the law of the land in order to do as God would have me do; I do need to obey the law of the land in order to do as God would have me do. I will not take it on myself to decide when that has changed, as there's a prophet who I'm sure will know better than I will if / when that time comes. Until such time, I know what God expects of me, here where I live, now, in this time I live in.

Actually, if you're willing to accept the consequences (which in some cases might be quite severe, but you still have a choice), they don't require you to violate God's law, not yet. (They may one day, but not yet.)

You're absolutely right. And per the D&C (and the New Testament, perhaps other volumes of scripture too, feel free to see the topical guide), one of His commands is to obey the laws of the land. Of course, if you're a Mormon in Utah, you're probably totally convinced that this doesn't apply to traffic laws.

Not all encryption works exactly that way*, but if that's how Apple have done it, then that's how they've done it. *It can be that the user password is not the encryption key, so that the user password is used to permit decryption, and then the encryption key (separate value) is applied to do decryption. This was my thought. But if they've used the user's password as the encryption key, then that's that (unless they can figure out the user's password).

Why would they have to do that? I have a hard time believing Apple can't unlock a single phone - really, it ought to be as simple as resetting the user's password / pin so the feds can log into the phone as if they were the user. As a programmer, I'm just having a hard time believing Apple would have to develop anything, and am certain they would NOT have to hand that over to the government - just unlock the one phone.

Those who are having this problem could try deleting all the cookies from LDS.net to see if that helps. (Be warned, this has the potential to: remove settings / preferences; remove memory of what threads you have / have not read; remove stored login / auto-login settings; etc. Basically, plan on (potentially) re-configuring all your settings / preferences for the site.) No guarantee it would work, but it's what I would do if the site were logging me out without me telling it to.

Stars aren't in facsimile #2 for the same reason elephants aren't in facsimile #2: it doesn't need either to teach what it's trying to teach. (At least, that was what I understood from Vort's comment.)

Am I confused, or is the government asking not to be let into _this one phone_ (a comparatively simple and harmless task), but rather, for the ability to get into any phone they want, whenever they want? It's the difference between them asking for Liberty to open _your_ safe, vs. Liberty giving them those proprietary secrets which would allow them to open _any_ Liberty safe. Or the difference between asking the bank to open your vault vs. ordering the bank for the key to _every_ vault. Personally, I think they should only be asking for the one phone to be unlocked (easy enough - just change the user's pin / password). To demand the ability to unlock every phone out there seems over the top and guaranteed to increase abuse. (Of course, I don't know why they don't just have Penelope Garcia hack in - she ought to be able to do that before the next commercial break.)

Whether it's a counselor or a bishop, one of the good things about having someone else to guide you through this kind of change is that they can help you set goals (with deadlines and a next appointment where you know they're going to ask how you did), they can help you answer the hard questions that you might shy away from on your own, and they can tell you how it looks from the outside, etc.. Whether you need those benefits or not, I couldn't begin to say, just wanted to point out some things that a second party can help with (if that second party is a friend or family, their feelings for you might interfere with those benefits - or they might not, just depends on them and you...).

In my experience, if you can bring yourself to let go of whatever is holding you back, and work hard on your relationship with God and Jesus Christ, things will turn around (even if it's only your perception and ability to handle challenges). Read the scriptures every day (even if you can only manage a few verses or minutes), go to church every week, sing the hymns. Simple things like these, continued over time, can make a big difference, when done willingly. Best wishes for you in your trials; I'll remember you in my prayers.

FWIW, I participate on the church's tech forums, where software like this is discussed, and there hasn't been a word. While it's possible the feature is being developed in secret / no one involved has mentioned it on the forums, it seems unlikely there would be no word of it on the forums if it were real and anywhere near release. I think it's not happening.

My personal belief is that in general, we won't remember until the resurrection (or thereabouts). Otherwise, there would be no need to preach the Gospel to the spirits in prison. I also suspect each of us will remember as we are ready to, that the veil will get thinner and thinner (or thicker and thicker, I suppose) until we are worthy of passing through it. This goes along with my other suspicion that one of the reasons the veil is needed in order for mortality to work is to determine who is righteous away from God's presence - in other words, his presence is so powerful, that at least some of us will obey for that fact alone. Only with the veil can we learn for ourselves what we really want, whether we're willing to live the kind of life God lives, no matter what. All that said, the only thing I can think of from scripture or doctrine is the fact that the Gospel must be preached to the spirits in prison. From that, I infer all the rest.

Yes, good point.

IMO, it doesn't really (usually) work that way. I can't say that received X as a direct result of Y sustaining-act. The most specific example I can think of is that last year, our Stake President challenged us to read the scriptures for 30 minutes / day. I accepted that challenge (which I also consider a form of sustaining my Stake President), and have been blessed with increased spirituality in my life - greater peace, greater understanding and appreciation for the scriptures, things like that. But I suspect I would have received the same blessings if I had chosen to do it all on my own, without the Stake President ever having made the challenge... There may be other blessings I'm not (yet) aware of. I guess my point is that I think blessings like this are like drops in the bucket (or oil lamp, if you want). Hmm. I'm a terrible singer. I used to never sing aloud (though the words were in my mind and heart), until I realized the link between raising my hand to the square and singing. I sing now. I try to sing quietly, so as not to damage the ears of anyone seated too close to me, but I sing. And I feel the Spirit more strongly in Sacrament meeting, in particular, which I think is a direct result of making that choice. I think without that realization of the link between raising my hand to the square and singing, I never would have sung aloud in the meetings. Again, I think I would receive the same blessings regardless of my motivation, but in this case, my motivation was to sustain, as I was promising to do.

Similar to Vort's solution to dealing auditory distractions, I have an old Android tablet with a music app on it and a bunch of slow, soothing type hymns and similar music which plays all night long (it randomizes and loops). The volume is extremely low (I can only hear it after I've settled into bed). I find that this helps me sleep more soundly than I do without it, and having MoTab sing me lullabies is very soothing. (Beautiful Savior, by only the men, is something I could listen to a zillion times and not get tired of it... Wait, that can't be right... ) (The only nightmare I ever had was driven away by looking at a small portrait of the Savior - to replace the images from the nightmare - and praying. So I can't offer any other advice there.) As for prayer not seeming to do much when you look at it rationally, then look at it more rationally. Conversation does good, does it not, when the two parties understand each other? When a child sincerely tells their parent what's going on in their life and asks for help, willing to follow the offered advice and receive the offered assistance, it does good, does it not? Prayer is no different, except that you can't see the other party, and you have to concentrate really hard to receive the offered answer. That said, in my experience, it can be very hard to learn to pray and receive guidance or comfort or whatever in response, so you have to keep trying, not just hoping, but believing God is there and will help you. I have found that the best way for me to have effective prayers is to forget what I want to say, and ask God what I should pray for - and if I'm having a hard time feeling the Spirit, I start with bearing my testimony. Anyway, from where I sit, there's nothing irrational about it, or any other part of the Gospel (unless you disbelieve in God).

IMO, when I raise my hand to sustain the new ward chorister, I'm saying that I will sing the hymns in Sacrament meeting. When I sustain the RS Pres, I'm saying I will serve when she asks. When I sustain my visiting teaching supervisor, I'm saying I'll call and report each month. Etc. I think sustaining is a lot more than raising your hand. It's possible there isn't any more for particular callings (except perhaps praying for them; e.g. if I have no children and am not called to primary, how do I sustain the primary president?); but for many callings, there's some active thing you can do to sustain them. The blessings from this kind of sustaining seem obvious. "The song of the righteous...", service brings blessings, obedience brings blessings, etc., etc., etc.

We cannot go both toward the Savior and away from Him at the same time. And being mortal, we cannot know what would have happened had we chosen the other direction. What we can know, is that there is only one way, one truth, one life, and that is found through Jesus Christ. Therefore, we can logically conclude, that no matter how hard life seems while going toward Him, if we continue toward him, the end result will be infinitely better than any alternative. John 6:67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? 68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. As hard as it may be, there's nowhere else to go.

D&C 58:21 Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.

So you're an insane, streaking Mormon?

Wow, this just took off, didn't it? Let's cover the simple answer first: Per the D&C, to forbid to eat meat is not of God - God is OK with us eating meat. The definition of "sparingly" is between each individual and God (were it otherwise, God would have defined "sparingly"). Next, I'm going to present the arguments which could be used to say eating food made with blood is just fine: Romans 14 Acts 10-11 (esp 10:15) Yes, I know Acts 10 and 11 are about taking the Gospel to the Gentiles, but I suspect there's a pattern here, and that this experience was used in part to remove the dietary restrictions which came from the Law of Moses. Various other New Testament discussions about the Law of Moses are likely equally relevant. Whatever else is true, clearly the dietary restrictions of the Law of Moses have been removed (at least in detail, though perhaps not in intent - that is, to eat healthy). The fact is, we have nothing solid from scripture (which speaks volumes), and we have one Apostle / Prophet saying that in his opinion, we should avoid consuming blood. This cannot be called false doctrine just because there's not much else in support of it, nor because it's published with the caveat of "not official" - it's just "not doctrine" (that doesn't make it "false doctrine"); nor can teaching otherwise be called false doctrine - we don't really have doctrine at this-specific a level. We have D&C 89, other scriptures, opinion, and guiding principles. Make a choice, pray, and do as you think best. Teach the same, that is: "Here's what we know, here's what we don't know, so you should consider all these things, make a choice, and pray about your choice." That seems like a safe course to me. As I said before, the idea of eating anything made with blood (raw or cooked) makes my skin crawl, but I'm not about to start a campaign to have all the Scots (or apparently Filipinos) in the church ousted.

Actually, it's impossible, because even if you replicate production (or build on a new server and then make the new server production), you CANNOT replicate all the users of a public website. There are (off the top of my head): Various operating systems (brands and versions) Various web browsers (brands and versions) Various plugins for those browsers (e.g. I stop Javascript libraries from running unless I explicitly allow them - no one but me knows which ones I do / don't allow) Various languages of those operating systems and browsers and plug-ins Various hardware combinations (yes, at least in theory, your hardware can impact how all that runs) Various ISPs and networking hardware (yes, at least in theory, your ISP and networking hardware could impact this) There's just no way to know everything that's going to happen when a public site goes live. I'd say that once they got past the migration difficulties, the upgrade is pretty good. Thanks to the team! And we still have the best emoticon: