JohnsonJones

I have a similar thing happen to us. I am technically now a millionaire...but I definitely don't feel like a millionaire and it isn't in a way I can actually spend it. It is simply because my HOUSE is now worth a LOT more (I think 2.5X to 3X of a value increase over the past 4 years probably is about accurate, we had it appraised for property taxes around 2019 and the current appraisal was around 3X what the last one was just recently). I think it's rubbish. The amount of money I can spend hasn't gone up, I don't have more money really, but simply because they say my house is worth more I'm supposedly richer... It just doesn't feel right.

That depends on where you live. I think you live in Texas...isn't that correct. Texas lacks income taxes...and the money to fund the government has to come from somewhere. I believe Texas (California is even worse, and Florida is beginning to inch towards uncomfortable from what I'm hearing) has higher property taxes than many other places in the US. My property taxes are relatively light, and not that costly. That goes towards funding schools and other things in our local area, so considering that amount it's very little to pay for what we get in return for us. (I believe I COULD apply for an exemption in regards to veteran status and age, but I do not see a need to. If I were in Texas I might desire to do so though from what I hear about Property taxes there).

It seems that Utah gets a LOT of temples comparatively to elsewhere. I think we need a few more in the East Coast and South East to balance things up a bit.

Isn't Negative income tax just another coin, or another side of the coin of Universal Basic Income? Experiments showed (on a quick look up) that it only returned a postive $1 for every $3 taxed on it. It may be different if we restricted it only to those who were able to qualify for Social Security, but we'd still need a Social Security Tax in order to provide for it. However, it is a considered by some a form of UBI, which many also consider another form of Socialism. Personally, I'm not sure what I think of UBI or other ideas similar to it right now. Some of the ideas sound off to me, so I don't think I'm in favor of it, but at the same time...in regards to Social Security, that's the only form of income some people have. ON the otherhand, if we instituted Negative Income Tax, I probably would still be taxed on SS in my paycheck, but may not get a check from the government anymore in that sort of payment scheme.

Thanks. I am heading out that way Tomorrow. I am driving to Killeen with two of my sons. We should be hitting Louisiana and that area on Saturday and hopefully Houston and the rest of the way after that. Hopefully we don't run out of gas either, but we are hoping on staying in hotels along the way (have hotels already reserved in Killeen at least, as long as we make it). If we do make it, seeing conference in the Stake Center could be nice.

The change in wording is only a clarification in some ways. We believe in a Spirit World, but that Spirit World is divided into two parts (at least). There is Spirit Prison and Spirit Paradise. It may be that the interpretation was that they would go to the Spirit World, but be in Spirit Paradise rather than Spirit Prison. For those who do not believe in a time between life and the resurrection (and where they may believe that what comes after is the end, thus prison is hell and paradise is heaven and that is it), then they could believe that the thief was going to be in heaven that day (or, what we may interpret as the heaven after judgement). However, in our understanding, Paradise would still be part of the World of Spirits. The fact that it is not defined whether it is Paradise or Prison in the translation gives it more of a mystery, but with the thief's statements and how the Lord responded to him a reasonable and logical thought would probably be that the Lord was telling the Thief that they would be able to end up in Paradise (whether sooner or later is a little harder to define probably from that statement) and be with him. As it was in the middle of a crucifixion, it would depend on when the Lord said it, as being crucified could take quite a while to actually die. It was a painful and torturous death, so unless they were already close to death, it may have not been that actual day he ended up there unless something sped it up (or it was as another poster commented, the comma is located at a spot which indicates the Lord saying it that day in reference to the future). It could also have been referencing more of a time frame or period in the Lord's time rather than that specific day where they were hanging from crosses.

The beads are still around, at least with some college age individuals. I've seen a few wearing them in the past few years. The trend that I REALLY am not fond of though is the nose rings. For some reason there is an inordinately large amount of women wearing these nose rings these days. I don't know what spurred on this trend. We never felt these things looked nice when I was their age (of course, we'd have seen them more as a pirate or something like that with a nose ring), and I can't imagine that young men find it attractive now...but maybe tastes have changed.

I would probably ALSO trust the police force far more when it comes to arresting people. The military is trained more to kill then to restrain (or detain), at least the portions I served in and when I served.

I was in the military. I saw combat. I've cleared buildings. We had MORE rules as military than what I saw in the video and that was years ago. (Edit: to be clear, I do not know the rules for the Utah police on how they clear buildings, my only experience is with military situations). Those who are NOT military, are civilians. There are MANY civilians who want to claim they are not (for example, today, I am a civilian, I am no longer in the military). Police in the United States are not Military. Most Military forces are prevented from doing police roles in the United States by the Posse Comitatus Act. However, States MAY have military in the form of their National Guard which can act in that role under the direction of the Governor or whoever is over them in the State. They are distinctly identified differently than Civilians in general. Your general Police officers are NOT military, they are a civilian force (which also means there is an easier process for them to be fired in general and they also have certain rights as citizens that military do not have when acting in their official military duties). A military member gives up certain rights in their roles due to keeping good order and discipline in the military which civilians normally do not have to abide by. There are items which a military member can be punished for where as a Civilian may be fired, but cannot be punished. (For example, you lose certain rights to free speech while in your capacity as a military member, you lose the ability to be free from search without a warrant while on a military installation and if you live on base, they can search your quarters without a warrant, in theory adultery is a punishable offense amongst others whereas civilians will not get jail time for this type of crime). There are crimes in the UCMJ which you can go to prison for which are not punishable if you do them as a civilian. Maybe I am (clarification: ignorant of the Utah Police's building clearing tactics when involving little kids sitting on a floor with no weapons or hostility). I was in the military and in the front lines. This means clearing buildings (though sometimes that would be more like huts and holes). There was probably a lot more hostility and enemy combatants at times than what I imagine most police would see in a lifetime. Lots of gunfire. You mistake me as wanting an apology of some sort? I am not after an apology, I was looking for an explanation that made sense. Time stamp of 7:42 with an officer with a rifle approaching a child. There was another officer that seemed to be accompanying them. The child did not appear to be hostile or a threat. They could have had the other officer holster their weapon and approach the child to be less threatening. The entire conversation seemed ridiculous to me as the officer talking was a stranger with a weapon. If nothing else, he could have remained and covered another officer who was less threatening (and later they have one, but not that initial conversation). I don't think you've ever been on the front lines wondering if a kid is being used and is going to blow you up and try to kill you. It's a terrible situation. IF you HAVE to kill a kid, or worse, kill one by accident, it is a scar that you will NEVER get over. It doesn't matter how justified people may say or tell you, unless you are some sort of psychopath, this is a scar you cannot really ever recover from. You will have nightmares about it for the rest of your life. If you see something like this video where I point it out, even if you were just the witness to it, you will (unless, of course, you are the aforementioned psychopath) you will probably have questions. In that light, it would make sense to have a different policy or approach to spell out a situation like this. It protects both the child and the officer. I would rather die than shoot an innocent child on my own accord today, and I can't imagine anyone who would have a different opinion. Maybe you have been in that type of situation, maybe you have not. I can only relate my own thoughts and feelings on it, and seeing that portion made me uncomfortable with how it was dealt with. You can say it's ignorance of police procedures (and perhaps it is, as I stated, I am NOT a police officer in any way, shape or form). I am not anti-police. I've not really followed the case closely, and the video is probably my first real exposure to the case and what happened in it in any great detail. What part of this Did you interpret as being Rather than asking for an explanation?

I am not looking for a reason, I haven't seen police doing something like that previously. Perhaps it's because I haven't been on the wrong side of the Law. HOWEVER, if that's what the police do to look for kids...and it's standard...you are right...I HAVE A SERIOUS PROBLEM with CIVILIAN POLICE doing such stuff. I did not know that was a standard protocol for Utah police, and finding out from you that it is a standard protocol does not actually make me feel any better about that situation portrayed in the video. Why would your standard protocol be to be guns out when making first contact with a child (that they were looking for). I can understand why a kid would be scared to even talk in that situation even if they were a normal kid that hadn't been abused! The video does NOT make it clear they are clearing the building, it seemed to state they were trying to find children. It could have been both, but in that instance there needs to be a protocol where there is SOMEONE the children can approach with out fear. You can have others covering that individual, but you need to have someone the children will be less likely to be scared of than everyone having guns drawn searching for a child. IN MY OPINION of course, and obviously, I am not a police officer in Utah (or anywhere else for that matter). 1. That makes a little more sense, they probably should have mentioned something like that in the Video (or if they did, I didn't catch that). It makes sense why they'd be clearing the house then, though I'd still say they should have at least one person for the children to approach or to approach the children (unless they felt the children were going to be attacking the officers as well, which wasn't the impression I get). Have that person covered by others, but someone who doesn't have a pistol drawn approaching a child to talk to them and coax them more comfortably (and yes, later in the video it shows such individuals, but initial contact should not be a surprise to anyone that a child would be scared of strange men, even if they were officers, with guns drawn trying to talk to them). 2. Holy Smokes...that's crazy! So, that indicates she KNEW what she was doing was wrong! That's insane. She was knowingly doing something she knew was illegal or would get her into legal trouble!? Why would she knowingly do such a thing? That blows my mind! I guess some people do these things (and I know they do, but it never ceases to amaze me), but in this instance with kids...just...I can't even imagine why. She was supposed to be helping them and instead...she knowingly was doing terrible things. Terrible. Atrocious. I can see why people are so angry about this.

Thing I think was the scariest were Police were going through the house at the ready position, as if they were ready to shoot someone or expected someone to come out attacking them. Weird position to have when trying to find kids in a house. If I were that kid I'd be afraid as well. Still holding the gun as they talked to the kid at first also??? What were they thinking the kid was going to do??? Not sure it's a good look for the department on that point. Another unanswered question, why was Hildebrandt on her phone with her attorney? Was she aware she had done something questionable already and wanted to have the attorney ready the instant the authorities showed up? The video leaves me with more questions than answers. Maybe that's what it's supposed to do as I expect it's an advertisement for a show?

Hmmm, well, when I was younger I was tested with an IQ normally around 155 (IQ can vary in tests given dependent on day, time, personal feelings that day, etc). Normally it was right about that range and with most tests I took in earlier years I was normally in the 99% so I suppose that would match. One of my daughters is much smarter than me, usually having an IQ around the 160 range. On the otherhand, I had a son who always felt somewhat left behind her, even though he constantly wanted to prove himself in smarts. He had an IQ of around 110. What I noticed though was that he turned out to be a MUCH HARDER WORKER than she was. He was much more dedicated to what he did, and in that way turned out much more successful. I also had a daughter who had a much lower IQ, but was extremely charismatic. She dazzled everyone and had boys falling out of the woodwork to try to ask her out when she was younger. In that light, I'm not sure IQ is much more of a way of measuring how fast we catch onto things and how good we are at taking tests. Perhaps there are other forms of ability (IQ of other sorts such as work ethic, people skills, etc) that are just as important but that we don't regularly test for or design tests for. In that way, each of us may be geniuses in different areas. While I may have the "IQ" smarts on paper, I may be the equal of a low IQ individual in the area of computers or mechanics. Fixing cars is definitely not my forte, but there are those who it comes as easy as eating a piece of pie. it is possible that the Lord was talented in ALL of those areas, not just how we measure "IQ" but in personal skills he was a genius, relating to others he was a genius, and many other areas that are just as important, if not more important, in his ministry. How do you rate those? Normally we don't and so I'm not sure how important it really is to give out a number. I may have stated a number above regarding how I have tested in the past, but in real life it has no real bearing to how successful I am or how much of a good person I am (and how good you are is really what TRULY matters at the end of the day/life). In the important areas of life that number is meaningless. It doesn't actually represent anything meaningful, or that has true impact. In that way, I'm not sure if we could measure all the ways the Lord was a genius, but I'm not sure it matters either. What really matters would be that he KNOWS each and everyone one of us, knows what and how we think and WHY we think that way, loves us, and through him and his atonement we can be cleansed of our sins, raised from death and resurrected in perfect form through faith in him and doing the things he has asked us to do to show that faith.

Sounds Interesting, and though PG, it seems like it may not have too much of anything (language, violence, etc) on my list of things not to watch. Interesting subject matter as well.

401K's have only been around since the late 1970s (1978??). We haven't had a big enough crash in the US to actually test how vibrant they are yet. WE have been fortunate. We have not had that once in a century crash (some think 2008's recession was it, but it was no where close. We have been blessed thus far to be able to get our way out of things before they get too bad). WE haven't had an economic crash such as the Great Depression (or after that, the aftermath of World War 2 in Europe and parts of Asia, one reason why the US economy was so robust in the 1950s-1980s). Those literally took a decade or two to get out of for each area. Social Security is a result of one of those Economic crashes. It's not a good look to have your elderly starving to death and dying on the streets (and worse than that). Going back there have been other crashes similar to these in history, but nothing really recent. If we had a crash like that, I would not gamble that the stock market would actually even necessarily survive. If it did occur, we could be several decades before someone gets out of it. It's not like a 40% crash (or even 50% which wasn't unusual for some accounts in 2008), but something like a 90% crash (how is that possible? Some go down to 0 in worth, others are barely in subsistance, etc, but the big kicker are the big brokers and those who handle the retirements go broke and disappear which cause 99% of investosrs, the small investors, lose everything). The stock market might survive and many come out on top, but it could also be that many of the financial services that HANDLE the stocks for the common person and those 401K and other accounts (another thing that came out of the Great Depression was insuring your bank accounts, but that's only to a certain amount which in no way would give me enough to survive my retirement today, much less future generations) go bankrupt and all your investments disappear with them (meaning most of the public lose their retirements, even if the more wealthy may actually get wealthier). This was what they were afraid could happen in 2008 (and may have happened to a large degree with at least a minority of the population without the interventions the government did) but managed to avoid. Which means, until it's actually tested by a REAL and LARGE economic crisis in the US (which also normally means people are literally starving on the streets, the homeless are quite visible, not just those tent cities, but people walking commonly, going door to door, etc), I don't know if the current ideas of 401K will actually survive and be good ideas. We are due for one in the next 30-40 years, but I don't know when it will hit or if we will actually be able to postpone it. Maybe it will hit at the same time SS crashes? That could be a stimulus to push us over the edge into one.

There are rather strict cutoffs if we are to believe in section 76 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Telestial - Those who rejected the gospel but did not deny the Holy Spirit. As We know, every knee will bow and all will eventually accept the Lord, but these did not accept the Lord in their mortal or spiritual probation, but only later (probably). In my opinion this basically means all those who were baptized (mortally or in proxy). As long as they accept the Lord and the ordinances, they will be saved in a glory that surpasses our understanding in mortality. Terrestrial - These are those who rejected the gospel in this life, but accepted it in the spirit world. They are also those who are hororable but blinded by the craftiness of men. They could also be those who had the gospel but were not valiant in their testimony of Jesus (in my opinion, this could also be those who accepted the gospel but did not follow the teachings of Jesus or put the ideas and morality of men above that which the Lord teaches, such as caring for the poor, helping the sick, loyalty to one's spouse and fidelity in marriage, the Law of Chastity, Charity, and other items covered in the Scriptures and ideas such as the 13th article of faith...etc). Thus, though short, not being valiant could be a lot larger and harder than I may even imagine it to be. Celestial - These accepted the gospel and received all the ordinances thereof. They overcame by faith and their blessings were Sealed upon them by the Holy Spirit of promise. They are members of the Church of the Firstborn. They are priests and have the Melchizedek Priesthood. They overcome all things. These are pretty clear cut dividing lines in some ways. In some ways it could be seen that you are either on one side of the line or the other. In looking at it, the ONLY for use to even get the Telestial is through the atonement, and it is absolutely far more true with us being able to achieve the Celestial. Without the atonement and the ability to repent and be cleansed from our sins I don't see a way for any man (because no man is perfect except for the Savior, and thus could not overcome anything without him) could even dream of making the Celestial Kingdom, much less the Telestial.