Fether

I’m trying to think of a word I learned forever ago but l cant remember it. I either learned it in a philosophy class and it was a certain fallacy, or in my English and propaganda class. The attributes of the word are as followed: - It describes a widely accepted and rarely disputed phrase, usually used as a gut reaction, whose purpose is to avoid addressing a question or complaint. - Similar to the term “pointless tautology” - Examples of this are: Person 1: Where does God come from? Person 2: We are just not meant to know — Person 1: I’m so sick of practicing this cello! Person 2: Practice makes perfect — Person 1: My wife is always is always demanding money to go shopping Person 2: hey man, happy wife happy life

@Mores When it comes to clean energy, nuclear is the way to go. My statements were just to fight back the idea that solar is not a good alternative energy source. Large scale farms are awful and in some states more expensive for consumers than roof top. Solar is cheaper for virtually everyone in some states and has less of a footprint than coal. And that footprint is only going to get smaller.

So here is the thing, A lot of states have this thing called “net metering”. The easiest way to put it is that the local power grid stores the excess energy you use and gives it to you when you need it “like at night”. I work in the industry full time and have not once sold (or even seen a co-worker sell)a single battery. I have met a few people that have batteries, but the only benefit to having one in these states is that you get to keep your power on when the grid is shut off. (now this net metering has its own issues, but technology will eventually catch up and those problems will go away). First off, I agree that nuclear is the cleanest of them all. As for the other point, technological growth can fix the issues with disposing of solar panels.

So there are a couple things that he really isn’t keeping in mind. 1) one of his first statements is that solar is cheaper to generate on solar farms than on roof tops. I believe this, but the transmission fee power companies charge makes it immensely more expensive for the residents in CA and NV. And as those states turn more toward solar, roof top solar will slowly become the better financial option. 2) wind turbines are terrible for the environment. Simple solution, let’s build a new design for it https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/2015/05/future-wind-turbines-no-blades/amp 3) Getting rid of unusable solar panels is terrible for the environment. ya, but we are probably about 50 years away from being able to fully recycle them. Additionally, I imagine disposing of 15 solar panels is safer than burning 50-100 tons of coal into the air.

On a humorous note, my stake president once told me a story of when Elder Perry came to a leadership Q&A. A bishop asked “Why don’t we see miracles today like there were in the early period of the church?” Elder Perry preceded to rebuke him for his lack of faith. My stake president then told us “I decided right then and there that I had no question that needed to be asked” xD

To clarify, I was referring to well meaning people that are oblivious to reasons why this topic would be hurtful

I love this. I find that any interaction my 1 year old and I have is supremely profound and teaches me about my relationship with my Heavenly Father.

I do think talking about the need to avoid this question should be discussed. For people like my wife and I, who are so fertile that mere kissing causes pregnancy, this question is on the same level as “what are your plans after college?” The whole scenario is like someone’s doorbell being hooked up to a shock collar. We press the button cause we want to say hello, but don’t realize it is hurting you. But would surely stop if we knew

And only God and those with specific stewardship is able to judge motives like this.

This topic is frustrating. Young couple without kids: Don’t tell me when I should have kids, that is personal! Same couple years later that have kids: You should wait to have kids I live my life by the motto “I’m living authentically and obeying the principles I subscribe to and assume everyone else is”So if I see a couple without kids, I choose to believe that they want a family but simply are not fertile. If I hear someone make a statement like “We don’t want kids”. I’ll shrug and say to myself “they just don’t understand” If I see someone on a Latter-day Saint site writing an article about raising children and it says “And guess what? We’ve never felt like it was the right time. We have never once had any kind of spiritual prompting that we are supposed to start having children — or any desire to.” And takes quotes from general authorities out of context to push her point, My duty as a priesthood holder via Doctrine and Covenants 20 and my (not-so)righteous indignation kicks in. I could write a book about why she is wrong, but I’m just ganna expose her very first quotation and get back to life (for now). the talk is here: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2011/10/children?lang=eng the entire talk is about how the world marginalized having children and how we need to overcome that fear and choose to have a family. Prior to the opening quote the write so heavily leans on, Elder Anderson says: ”Many voices in the world today marginalize the importance of having children or suggest delaying or limiting children in a family. My daughters recently referred me to a blog written by a Christian mother (not of our faith) with five children. She commented: “[Growing] up in this culture, it is very hard to get a biblical perspective on motherhood. … Children rank way below college. Below world travel for sure. Below the ability to go out at night at your leisure. Below honing your body at the gym. Below any job you may have or hope to get.” She then adds: “Motherhood is not a hobby, it is a calling. You do not collect children because you find them cuter than stamps. It is not something to do if you can squeeze the time in. It is what God gave you time for.” The whole talk argues against the sophistry that it’s ok to choose to not have kids. As do countless quotes from other general authorities. There isn’t a single general authority that has ever existed that would argue that point. note: lastly to clarify. I do not think it is wise to ask and prod couples about when they are going to have children. Nor do I believe someone should be condemned for merely appearing to choose not to have Kids. The Only thing I disagree with in the article is the idea that choosing to not raise a family is as righteous as a decision as choosing to raise a family.

I really don’t think this story has anything to do with rich people giving away their money and followings christ. He did not create a new commandment where as soon as you acquired $1,000,000 you needed to give everything away. Instead he was just reinforcing the 2nd commandment, to have no other god. Had I been the young man, God may have said “stop playing boardgames and watching marvel movies and devout more time to studying the gospel.”, or if he spoke to my mom (who is a very righteous woman) he may have said “stop focusing so much on eating healthy and working out and devout even more time to me.” its easy for good things to sometimes outshine the gospel. Money is only one of those good things.

Elder S Mark Palmer in his April 2017 GC talk said “We don’t know what happened to the rich young man after he went away sorrowful, but I am confident Jesus still loved him perfectly even if he chose the easier path. Perhaps later in life, as he found his great possessions hollow, he remembered and acted on the singular experience of His Lord beholding him, loving him, and inviting him to follow Him.” I would invite you to read his talk, it’s fantastic. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2017/04/then-jesus-beholding-him-loved-him?lang=eng&country=b

Prove you wrong? I don’t know that I can. But part of me wonders what lesson can be learned from this event if your interpretation is correct. Maybe just satisfy the readers need for “justice”. I like to think that he truly was righteous and was honestly seeking to know what more he ought to do. And secondly, I like to think that he did give away his riches, the account says that he only left upset, but says nothing about his ultimate decision. I chose to believe this because it is symbolic of what we all go through. We all feel like we are doing well, but always have one step we need to take that we don’t want to. It feels more motivating to think that the rich young ruler succeeded in his endeavor to give away his riches. Maybe I can too

My suggestion would be to keep dating, but the moment it becomes remotely serious and marriage is potentially an option. He should know and you should tell him.

I would actually argue that the “unorthodox”/disobedient members of your own faith tend to be more offended.

For those of you that grew up watching Arthur on PBS. https://tvline.com/2019/05/13/arthur-mr-ratburn-gay-wedding-episode/

Her “doubts” about the law of chastity are definitely not the main issue. The truth is when people discover that sin is fun, they will come up with justifiable reasons to do it. I doubt your friend is really having trouble understanding why the law if chastity is a law, but is pretending to so she can justify her desire to sin. This is all a symptom of a greater problem. And that is a basic faith in Christ and faith that this is is true church upon the earth. additionally. Her testimony will continue to be dug away at for as long as she stays with this guy.

We need more of these 👍

Now I’m curious where you learned this?? I sell solar as a career and one thing I have learned is that nobody among the general populace goes solar because it’s the “right thing to do”. Solar is HUGE in California because it can be 10-60% cheaper than the power company. Solar is not popular in North Dakota because it is far more expensive than their power company.

The problem I have with “solutions” like this is that they will never work. Sacrifice is a great thing and is an essential part of the gospel, but when it comes to changing the world, you will never get the masses to sacrifice. Much like the public transportation solution I mentioned above, the solution to this is not to sacrifice eating meat, it’s to create something that is a cheaper and tasty substitute to red meat. Once that happens, cattle farms will shrink. That way there are no sacrifices and both sides are happy.

I think so to. But killing all the cows and getting rid of all the cars is not a compromise. I think the “compromise” is to make public transportation cheaper and more convenient than driving ourselves to where we want to go. You will never convince a nation to simply give up the convenience of a car and go back to horse and buggy.

Answering for myself here, but an attempt to save one thing while utterly laying waste to another is what makes something inappropriate. Get rid of planes and cars and all of a sudden you may have an economic disaster in your hand as well as a massive safety risk when it comes to war. slaughtering all the cows may save the atmosphere, but will destroy the environment.

The brother that ministers to me use to strike up conversation and joke about how bad he was at ministering, but now he doesn’t do that much anymore and haven’t seen him outside of church since. The people I visit don’t need too much contact. I visit one once a month to keep up with his life. The wife of another family I minister to ministers to my wife so we get together on occasion and hang out. The last couple So minister to are good friends of ours an we see each other every other week while playing games and hanging out.

I actually do appreciate this. I think what he symbolizes and stands for is his greatest strength in story telling. I think he would do VERY well in a roll similar to what thor played in infinity war. Where all hope seemed lost and BOOM, the bifrost opens and Thor comes to save the day. I have difficulty seeing him playing any other other than that, and that event can’t just be given out freely in every movie, it has to be earned or it won’t have much of an effect.

Every movie has its plot holes and things that characters conveniently forget for the sake of the movie. But in every Superman movie, they nerf him down a ridiculous amount so that the movie doesn’t end in 5 minutes. The only realistic fight scene where he wasn't weakened for the sake of the plot is is fight With Zod in Man of Steel. Every HISHE involving superman points this out. In fact I would argue HISHE gives the most accurate representation of what a super hero of his ability would be like. Watching Superman is like playing a video game with all the cheat codes on, but pretending you don’t have all the cheat codes on.