JohnsonJones

AS it is a minor, I suppose it depends on the major that the individual works on. If they go on to Legal studies, there is probably a small but significant portion of legal work they can be involved in where such a minor may be a boon. If they go into sociology or Psychology there are also small, but significant communities where such a minor may be useful in their impact in relating and helping others. As a minor it is probably not the worst choice among others in how it is applicable, dependent of course, on what one's major is. That holds true for most minors though.

HIPAA does NOT preclude this, as that is a violation of the First Amendment. IT PRECLUDES healthcare and other entities covered under 45 CFR § 164.512 from disclosing your health information to other entities as described in 45 CFR § 164.512 in whole or in part. Relavant CFR link for those interested in reading through it. There are many things that are prevented from disclosure by HIPAA, and one could say in those instances it is stopping Freedom of Speech, but it is done in the interest to protect one's right to privacy and the government from unwarranted intrusion into your own privacy and property (your health in many ways could also be considered property in a weird sort of way I suppose). However, you will not be prosecuted for disclosing your own health information, nor will you be prosecuted (unless you are a specific entity as defined by the above that has limitations on such, such as a healthcare worker, employee, or other figure with the ability to see health information or conditions of others or a related arena) from telling others about or for asking about someone else's health. People cannot be prosecuted for asking about if someone has been sick, someone is in the hospital, or other such actions in general. If this were so there would be so many people violating the law regularly (imagine a Church meeting, the Bishop finds out that someone may be sick from the Elder's Quorum president, the Bishop inquires about it from the family itself and finds they are sick and ask the Relief Society president to send meals over to them...if HIPAA made asking or talking about others who are sick or injured all those leaders would just have broken the LAW...and it would be a regular occurrence in the Wards around the US!!!). Now, just because they ask does NOT MEAN you have to answer. In fact, they cannot force you to give a vaccination status, but they ARE allowed to fire you for reason (or in some states, if they just feel like it as long as it does not pertain to a protected status such as race, religion or other item covered under the law). Whether they would be allowed to fire you for not disclosing a health condition is normally one of the protected arenas, but as this normally deals MORE with disability rather than vaccination, it could be seen more as a murky area. Precedent would indicate that they CAN preclude you from entering the premises or even employment for refusal of certain health treatments (certain vaccinations have had legal challenge in the past and in certain industries, vaccinations can be required though normally those industries in the past will give those vaccinations themselves to the incoming parties if no proof of vaccination is given, and an employee cannot be FORCED to disclose their own medical information in this way, though refusal of proof or to be vaccinated can be grounds not to employ that individual). It has not been applied large scale recently in the way that Covid-19 Vaccinations could be though. IN addition, schools are one entity that ARE allowed specifically to be allowed to require proof of vaccinations among a few others. If the current trend of those who are against being vaccinated vs. businesses who have an interest in seeing employees vaccinated continue, it may lead to legal cases which will resolve the issue more clearly in the future, though if we look at precedents of the past I would be inclined to lean toward the idea that businesses will be able to use refusal to be vaccinated in a public healthcare crises as ground to get rid of an employee. However, as one could also argue that it is not an item which would absolutely preclude someone from being able to do the work, it should not be a factor that is included in the consideration of terminating an employee, it should not be considered a valid reason for termination. So, while they can ask, they cannot "require" that you give them the information (in that you always have the right to refuse and not disclose your personal health information). For those who don't want to wade through the legalize, this is a decent summary. HIPAA regulations summary from hhs

I really enjoy Hawaiian pizza (or whatever it is called with ham and pineapple). I think the most unhealthy that I may enjoy more is a pizza but with fruit and other things like that on it. I think it is called a dessert pizza. My wife knows what it is called better than I, but it is terrific when made for family home evening dessert.

We have a bunch of TVs and game systems which the Grandchildren (and children) have played in the past. We have had one of our children and their family with us during the recent pandemic. The grandchildren probably have enjoyed it as they have had these gaming systems to themselves. This past week those grandchildren begged me to buy some games that were released on the Consoles. Their parent (my child) offered to pay for it this time around...how could I refuse. They have been enjoying a game called Subnautica which is some sort of game where you crash into the ocean and build things. They had the sequel released this week which the grandchildren really wanted. Their parent, though, wanted this game or something similar to it. It was just released on the Playstation and Xbox and they wanted to play it. So, last Monday they got Baldurs Gate on one of the Playstation 4s we have for the family. The grandkids started playing it instead (who says kids aren't influenced by their parents, the grandkids had wanted to play the Subnautica sequel for months, but instead played Baldurs Gate because their parent really was excited for it). It seemed it is a multiplayer action RPG of some sort that was released many years ago on older playstations, but was released recently in a form that plays on consoles today. Very violent game, but no blood from the brief time I saw them playing it. My kid and their spouse seemed REALLY excited about this game though. It didn't really have the same picture (as you posted above) on it's digital cover (the game was a digital download), but I think it was what looks like a lady warrior under the title or something like that. I do know it had the words Baldurs Gate in it though.

MY thoughts on why the Church teaches the principles which can bring us up to the Celestial Kingdom and does not push only merely getting to the Terrestrial or Telestial Kingdoms is because you do not need the Church in this life to actually end up in the Telestial or Terrestrial Kingdoms. The Church exist to bring those who desire to live in the Celestial Glory that opportunity. I feel in the pre-existence we had a choice on what we wanted to do in this life, where we wanted to be, and if we even wanted to go to the Telestial, Terrestrial, or Celestial Kingdom. According to our choices or desires we were granted such opportunities in this life. Thus, the lord already knows those that wished for a Celestial glory and were trying for it even prior to this life! The gospel of exaltation and the path and ordinances and covenants in the Church then, are for those children. WE are also the servants of the Lord and the tools to help all others to accomplish where they wish to go, whether Celestial, Terrestrial, or Telestial.

Well, one of the ironies I see about many of the Western States (Utah, parts of California, Arizona, Nevada) is that they know they have limited water already. They know they have limited resources. Yet, instead of taking a realistic approach, they WANT TO EXPAND THE POPULATION, BRING IN BUSINESSES WITH MORE WORKERS, AND BRING IN A LOT MORE PEOPLE TO MAKE MORE MONEY IN THEIR AREAS. If you have a low amount of water, why in the world do you want to cause further stresses by trying to increase the population size which in turn uses MORE WATER!?? It seems they are so focused on money and how to get MORE OF IT, that instead of looking at how to feasibly deal with their water situation, they want to aggravate it by making the matters worse because in the short term they can make a lot more money by bringing in more businesses which in turn bring more workers. One solution is to get people to move from those states. This reduces the amount of water necessary. Secondly, reduce the high end water usage of some of the businesses. This also reduces the load. They blame farmers in many instances, but it's not the farmers. Many of these locations (especially California) deal with reservoirs and underground aquifers. The farmers were doing just fine in the balance prior to the population explosions in these states. With more people though, more of the water is being used to the point where these reservoirs and aquifers were shrinking. It was shown in the past few years that even at above average rainfalls for the next few years/decade that California would STILL not solve the problem. The population was so great that the shrinking of the water sources would STILL continue. Utah has been at the edge of the same problem as California for the past 5 years at least...they are at the tipping point where their population will continue to shrink their water resources EVEN IF THEY HAVE ABOVE AVERAGE precipitation during a year. Last time I visited Utah, they were trying to attract a TON of businesses and people, especially south of Salt Lake. It seems to me that though they raise the alarm, because they are more focused on money than what happens to their water resources, they are making their own problems occur. A lack of precipitation may be exacerbating the problem or hastening it's impact, but it is by no means WHY it has occurred. This is a simple numbers game, and instead of addressing what the numbers have said, they are doing the exact opposite of what they should have because of "money" from what I can tell. The solution is actually remarkably simple, but I don't think they consider the solution one they want to look at.

It seems it was only their ability to bill others and track financial accounts that was compromised. The actual pipeline transportation of fluids was not. They were able to restore most by backups after wiping the affected computers. HOWEVER, if it had actually been a compromise of the pipeline where a foreign entity gained control...I'd have considered it an act of war. I think in such a scenario it should be treated as such. Challenge the nations the hackers are part of if the nation doesn't give up the hackers and if they don't...then treat an act of war with the ensuing treatment. Control of your energy resources by another entity to that degree is not where you pay off the enemy actors, but you destroy them so that they cannot do this to you again. This may seem a little extreme though. I'm one who feels we should go after the phone scammers who take money from US citizens as a terrorist threat as well that we should also go after (though with SEAL teams and such instead) currently, so maybe not the best take. That said, the pipeline, from what I understand, was never itself, compromised. Instead, it were the computers that kept track of who purchased what and kept track of finances which is a different matter entirely.

No idea, but I have seen a disturbing trend among academia in the past few days. They seem more than ready to condemn Israel rather than others and side against Israel. If this is a rising trend, it could signal a dangerous change of precedence in the US in it's attitude towards Israel. Much of Europe is not pro-Israel at this point either. I hope it doesn't come to War. More likely, if it does, it will be more regional with Israel going in again to the affected areas and clearing it out, and possibly to an adjoining nation. It could spread from there, though it has not in the past. Hopefully, instead they will come to some sort of more peaceful terms than what has been occurring recently.

There is a point in some services (Catholic) though I'm not sure if it is in all Christian Churches of the Protestants, where during the service you are told to socialize (to a very limited degree). You greet the person to your left and to your right, those around you. This is something that is not done in the Church (Latter-day Saints) and so in some ways, instead there are those that greet others in the chapel before the meeting even begins. In some ways it is a similar type idea, though not ritualized like it in other faiths. I think that there is the hope that such greetings would go on in the Foyer or other locations of the Church rather than the Chapel. We have various rules for the chapel (no filming...well...at least until recently with Zoom and such) of reverence and contemplation, but it can be difficult for people to do so at times.

I cannot speak for Suzie, but I have a poor example that may illuminate why this may be. I got to learn about many people over a few years in leadership, and several (more than people may think if the ward I was in is any indication of how many are in other wards) individuals that were disabled to various degrees. Many of them did not let anyone else know and I would not have found out if there had not arisen a situation where they felt I needed to be informed. Most of them felt (and I actually agree that they were correct in many instances) that the members in many instances would discriminate against them. If the members found out someone was disabled, that there would be stereotypes tossed at them either consciously or unconsciously. Some of these would be where, in the instance of physical handicap, that they would not be allowed to help in physical activities and treated as if they were an invalid. I had seen this actually occur. We had one individual that was a worker with scouting who, when the other scouting leaders found out that they had physical difficulties, asked that for that individual to be released. This individual had previously done all that was asked for them to do and was a successful leader. The difference was the membership wanting to "make their burden easier" whether the individual wanted that to happen or not. Dealing with this type of discrimination from some members is difficult. In some ways it feels as if the members do not accept those who have disabilities. I do not feel it is intentional and many times it is only seeking to try to help the individuals, or at least that is how members see it, but even situations like the one above can feel harsh. Other times they literally cannot perform certain callings or do certain things. However, they have many talents in other areas which sometimes are not realized because they have a physical disability. This failure to be accepted fully as others can lead to the individual themselves having trouble accepting themselves and their abilities to do things. This has led many that I found out about their difficulties to hide them from others. Some do not hide their disabilities. They acknowledge them openly. Initially, dealing with others and their life with a disability can be difficult, especially when moving to a new ward. Not all who do this adapt and some have problems coming to the ward...not because they cannot physically do so, but because the difficulty of facing others who do not recognize what the individual actually can do vs. what they have difficulty doing. Others flourish. These openly accept their difficulties and how others may perceive them, but some of them also recognize they have hidden talents and strengths because of these things that others would call disabilities. They accept it is part of themselves. Rather than try to do away or hide it, they show that they still can be complete members with the ability to add great meaning to our lives and the lives of others. The disability they experience in their lives may hinder them in some areas, but it can also be beneficial in others. As I said, this is a poor example (for starters, because having attractions that differ from others, or temptations that are different than what others may experience is not necessarily a disability or a sin, it is merely different things that they deal with or have in their lives), but in some ways there are similarities that I see between how the two different groups deal with who they are, acceptance of themselves, and acceptance from members. It is still not a great example, but perhaps it can help illustrate how admitting one has this as part of their lives and talking to others about it may not necessarily be a bad thing, rather it is just something different in their lives that defines them, but does not control them.

Funerals are not for the dead, but for the living. Though it is but an instant compared to the eternities, as we cannot remember the eternities, it seems an awfully long time for us when we are separated from loved ones by death. We feel grief because we will miss them. They are gone from our lives for the moment, and so most of us (I suppose there are some that can talk to those beyond the grave, such as perhaps the prophet) will not be seeing them for some time. They have gone away for a while and we will no longer see them, and so our grief is because we will miss them in our lives as we know it.

That is a terrible thing to tell someone. Unfortunately, I don't have a ton of advice to give on it. There is a trend in the Church today to teach what others call the prosperity gospel. It is the idea that the more righteous one is, the richer they get. This is unfortunately reinforced many times by who they call into leadership positions. It seems that many times the richer you are, the better chances one has of being called into higher leadership positions. This also reinforces other fallacious stereotypes among some types of members. I'm not sure how to help, but I have also felt a similar thing when I was younger. I remained an elder for many years, even as most of my peers became High Priests and several got high Church Leadership positions. There were many that equated their righteousness with riches, and ostracized me and others in the ward because we were not considered "righteous" enough as they were. This was painful. IT DID teach me a valuable lesson so that when I finally was made a leader I could understand struggles others have in the ward, but it makes it no less hard to bear. I have found there are MORE who are not rich than there are that are. Unfortunately it seems, in many instances, those with money are those that are granted all the good things in a ward at times, along with popularity and callings, while the rest are left to rot. In many places the same dozen rich individuals are constantly given the leader rotation while everyone else is left out. The implications are that only those dozen are righteous enough for the callings, while everyone else is not. I feel this is distinctly untrue and wrong, but it happens. What your daughter is experiencing unfortunately also extends into adulthood sometimes. I don't have any answers to the problem except to say continue to love them and show them that no matter what others say or do, she is still loved. Buying things at thrift stores is commendable. Being able to buy things with her own money is outstanding. I know many children do not do this or are given things abundantly by their parents. Showing one's own initiative is far better and greater. Unfortunately, hearing an adult or their parent tell them this in many instances is not good enough for a teen. The comments and statements by their peers affect them strongly. I have no answers for you unfortunately on how to make the situation better. I can only suggest what you are already doing which is to love her and help her understand that she is loved no matter what. Today there are many that try to equate how well of they are, their callings in the church, or how big their house is to how righteous they are. I have seen this attitude destroy the testimony of others. It can be a hard thing to endure. I would remind others of certain statements that the Lord has said at times (it is easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than a rich man to heaven, blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth, blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven, the first shall be last and the last shall be first...etc) so that they understand that the Lord is not a lover of riches. It isn't how much we have in this life, but how we act to others and our love for others. It may be that it will be easier for the atheist or agnostic who was charitable and blessed the lives of others to get to heaven than one who was a member of the church but was full of pride and arrogance. Tradition has it that our Lord and Savior was not rich (it is more a tradition than what we actually know though). That he wandered among others teaching his gospel. He did not put on extravagant shows of wealth, or wear fine clothes. Instead he traveled among others of his station and those who were poor, sick, and in need. He had more praise for the widow's mite than all the riches of the Scribes and Pharisees, the Lawyers and Kings, and the Wealthy Merchants and Traders. I know it probably isn't what your daughter is looking for or even needs to hear, but I think the Lord looks more favorably upon the humble and loving heart than those who pride themselves in riches, and at the final days those who are humble and meek are the ones that the Lord will put on a pedestal while those who have put their pride in the world will be the ones who will wonder why they are not favored as highly. PS: And of all people, the above should be a warning to me as well as I need to show more love, compassion, and charity to others around me. I need to be more humble and loving than I have been.

Much has been said in this thread. Sometimes I think a new approach needs to be done by the membership in the US in general. Today, the general approach is to focus solely on one specific sin or the other and exclude the rest of the commandment that the sin is part of or included with. This applies today to the Law of Chastity. This thread can be shown to be an example of it. Not all the posts, but many, focus only one one part of the Law of Chastity, that of homosexual relations. This is more a cultural thing (at least my thoughts are that it is) among members. I feel that instead of focusing on whether someone is attracted to others of the same gender or sex, we need to instead focus on the Law of Chastity itself. It has a wide envelop. The basic idea is that there are NO Sexual relations outside the boundaries the Lord has set, primarily meaning that there is NO relations of that sort outside of the ordained bonds of marriage, which means that such relations are only allowed in marriages between a man and woman. This does not mean people will not have feelings stirred inside of them in this regard. WE DO counsel youth regularly in regards to this. MANY of them feel such things towards others. To feel such things is normal, however, we also counsel them that they NEED to curb these emotions so that they keep the Law of Chastity strictly and only use the power of procreation within the confines of what is now known as traditional marriage. We have speakers talk to them about this, we have others talk to them about this. There are many angles to cover this from. There are those that have attraction to those of the same sex as they are. They can be told that this is normal for some people, but that does not make them bad or terrible anymore than any other youth or individual who also has attractions to others. They are still loved and are still our Father's children. They NEED to keep these feelings in check though, and the only permissible outlet is that set by the Lord. We DO have talks and other items that discuss the attraction others have to each other, especially in a heterosexual manner. We talk about the attraction and the feelings that go with it. We do not preach that it is a sin to simply have these feelings, but we do teach that we must CONTROL these feelings and the actions that go along with it. There is a great problem within the church today. A study many years ago now showed that 25% of seminary students had premarital relations. This is a seriously bad number. This was over a decade ago. I can only imagine the numbers are worse today. When I was in leadership, I saw this firsthand. We have a MUCH bigger problem with premarital relations of an inappropriate type among your youth in regards to those of the opposite sex than we do with those who are homosexual. Both can be a problem, but I see the problems with the Law of Chastity currently as a massive problem among our youth and most of those are NOT regarding Homosexual attractions. It used to be taught that Adultery was a sin second to murder, and fornication was like unto it. They were silent on how homosexual sins fell into this. This was probably for good reason, as the bigger problems the youth had was in relation to fornication or the steps that eventually lead to it. Sometimes, unfortunately, church members are only focusing on the smaller problems of same sex attraction these days. However, the problem is FAR bigger, and many of our youth are falling into sins which have them breaking the Law of Chastity. We need to teach them more about keeping the Law of Chastity and the blessings that come from it. We also need to teach acceptance of others and to Love our Neighbors as ourselves. (Side note about this: A thought occurred to me the other day; If we really loved our Neighbors in that manner, a Christian nation could instantly eliminate poverty, hunger, and homelessness overnight. There would be no need for welfare or Social Security. The fact that we have not shows just how Christian or UnChristian we really are). WE do not love the sin, we love the sinner. We also need to understand that people are at different stages of learning and advancement in this life. When others struggle with various areas of the Law of Chastity, instead of instant condemnation, we should approach it with understanding and love to encourage the person to overcome these problems and have a more solid commitment to be faithful in their life. They need encouragement at their low points, and help in becoming better people. I think we underestimate how much compassion and love can go to encouraging the youth today (and I suppose that also includes young adults who would be the audiences at BYU today for the most part) to keep the Law of Chastity and stay on the Covenant Path.

During the height of Covid-19 a similar item occurred in the US, though I understand it was not as strictly enforced. I had thought to go to Utah to visit some family during the time when it appeared that Covid-19 was on the downward slope but found out that Utah and many other states had a ban on others entering the state at the time or travel through their states. I think it was that if you entered in the states from another (and this was from travel within the United States, not just travel from a foreign nation) you would have to quarantine for 2 weeks. Currently, the US also has had a ban from some nations where you cannot enter the US if you have a positive Covid-19 Test...citizen or not. There were stories of the US citizens that were kept in Mexico for almost two weeks or more because of a positive test from Covid-19. I think that applies to any nation out there with people trying to enter the US. I had a friend who travelled overseas recently who got vaccinated and took precautions, but still prepared just in case they were barred from entering the US due to Covid-19. I do not know the fine or what the punishment is if you defy the US ban. I have not heard much outcry from the public on this, but I have heard some concerns about it from those who travel. I am gearing up for my annual research travel and it has me concerned, though I have all the papers in order to actually do research this summer. It is somewhat talked about to various degrees for and against it by those in the community who travel, I haven't heard a ton about it from the general public though. It may not be as extreme as the Australian ban but it is similar and done for a similar reason I suppose.

Note - I did not watch the video. If she stated the comment at the beginning of your statement I know ONE reason that she may have said it and a reason why that was approved to be stated. There is an unfortunate trend in the Church at times for parents to disinherit and disown LGBTQ children. When a child comes out, or falls into that form of sin, the parents bar contact, and basically tell the child that they no longer want to see them or talk to them. This has been a discussion point among many in that community who have had troubles within the Church. It can be a VERY hard thing for parents to deal with. I have one grandchild (though I suspect another one of mine may also fall into this camp, but they have not said anything to the family as of yet) that is part of the LGBT spectrum. WE express our love for them and pray that they will stay within the church and the boundaries it has set, but regardless, we still love them as our grandkid. Not all have done this with their children or grandchildren. There has been a trend at times, as I said above, to instead think that "tough love" will convince that child to change instead and thus the parents tell them they do not want contact with their child until that child changes. In many instances, this just pushes the child further away from their family and the church. I do not feel it does them a service or helps them to remain in the Church. Unfortunately, for some, it is easier to accept a child who had an abortion, or that is self-abusing (in the true, mental health fashion which means cutting on oneself or other forms of self-abuse in the actual definition of the word traditionally speaking), or other things than it is for them if their child comes out as LGBTQ. So, it may not be the reason she said it, but I can see that it could also be at the very heart of why she said it as well as why it was allowed to be said.