JohnsonJones

I have to admit I didn't look for it yesterday, but I did today. You are correct, I could not find it that easily on the site. I DID discover the Church seems to have a Youth Magazine. It is findable via a google search. I searched for Strength of Youth 2022 and it came up. It is made as a web view, but if you click on the corner options, you can download it as a PDF as well.

When I saw the title I thought it was comparing comics of yesteryear to today. I prefer the comics of the 60s, 70s, and 80s. I was a teenager in the 60s and that's when a lot of these comics got a lot more popular. Of course, there are comics that have disappeared that were in the newspapers and other areas of the past such as The Phantom (one of my favorites), Dick Tracey, Annie, Flash Gordon and others. I like the older comics as they were prior to the 90s because they were better in the area of morality. They were written with children in mind but adults could also enjoy them, and you didn't have the breaking of the law of chastity or other such things in the comics. The worst was probably Beetle Bailey and the various imitations of cursing (which was something experienced in the military quite a bit, so it reflected that I suppose). I haven't read a comicbook in decades, but from what I've read about them they have turned into pure dross these days with their various immorality and other items being pushed. It seems they are made more for adults rather than anything else. I don't think children should read such smut as I've heard is found in the comics these days. It is a sad reflection of how and where our world has turned. Luckily, when I read the comic strips in the Sunday paper I don't see such stuff in general, but they are also missing the comic serials which I so enjoyed many years ago.

So, it appears he violated the FACE ACT. According to his wife he drives 2 hours every Wednesday to South Philadelphia to "counsel" people at abortion centers. This "Counseling" appears to be more of protesting and trying to convince those going in that they should not go in. That, in itself, is actually still legal. That's not what he was arrested for though. It appears that he assaulted someone and that resulted in injuries at the clinic. Department of Justice page on the incident - Pennsylvania mad indicted assaulting reproductive health care provider In another document it reports that it was what sounds like assault... Pro life activists caused injuries that required medical attention when he forcefully shoved abortion clinic escort DOJ Finally, looking at it from the other side of the coin, from the news of a website I commonly visit... Mastriano says FBI arrest of Bucks County man an abuse of Power In it the governer says that this is an abuse of power and he will not stand for the FBI doing this in Pennsylvania. The article also goes into more depth on WHY these charges occurred which I'll quote below... It should be noted that charges do not equal a verdict nor that the case has even been tried yet. I don't know what will happen to him or what the result of it will be.

I don't know. He has straight up instructions for making an abortion drink in the Bible. It's one that causes a miscarriage and instructions on it's use. To many that shows that even the Lord supports the idea of abortion, at least in certain circumstances. Personally, I am of the generation (that probably is driving the latest Supreme Court decisions) that is completely against abortion. I think it is a dangerous thing to participate in no matter the circumstances in relation to your spiritual health and welfare. Personally I may feel it is something that should be outlawed except in cases of rape, incest, or the health of the mother. I also know much of that is driven by my religious beliefs rather than more logical ideas. The rational me dislikes the idea of any group of religious individuals pushing their beliefs on others. This is why I think our modern interpretations of the separation of Church and State are a good idea. In that light, taking a more logical though, the State (or government) should keep itself out of abortion AS LONG AS IT IS A MEDICAL ISSUE DECIDED BETWEEN A DOCTOR AND THE WOMAN. (in otherwords, anything that is done that is NOT from a medical doctor in the arena of abortion, I have no problem with it being outlawed). The State should not be dictating what has to be done by trained medical personnel in these types of situations. A doctor should not have to be afraid of trying to save the life of a woman or do something in relation to keeping her healthy because the state will punish him for doing so. A Doctor should be allowed to treat their patients to the best of their ability. The problem I have with many of these laws are that they are being made by those who have no medical experience, no medical training, and are not done in pursuit of saving lives or helping woman. They are being made purely from religious views with no insight into actually helping those who may need it. One result is that they cause doctors to be afraid of actually caring for the health of patients in certain situations. I am not a doctor, I know I should not be telling a doctor what they can or cannot do when trying to save someone's life or health. I think we should let doctors practice the medicine in these cases (and others), not someone in the government not connected to the situation, and even more so, most of those making the laws who have no medical training at all.

A branch of that. This is an interesting idea, if I may latch onto it and build a road around it. Thinking on this idea, it is possible that Adam realized the problem set before him. He COULD keep the commandment to not eat the fruit of good and evil, but if he did, it would leave Eve condemned. He knew that with the Lord probably could even provide a new help mate for him if Eve was sent out alone. However, this would mean that Eve would be condemned. There are some indications that they forgot some of the items they knew in the Garden of Eden, if this is true it could be that Adam was taught about the Plan of Salvation while in the Garden and understood that there could be a Savior born from children they had that would save them and their children if they should fall. This is PURELY speculation on my part while I am thinking on this. In that way, he made an informed choice, or transgression. In choosing to partake of the fruit he didn't realize it was wrong, but he would realize that he would want to save Eve, or at least not leave her alone in the world. It would be impossible for him and her to fulfill the commandment to have children if they were separated, and thus impossible for her to ever have he savior to save mankind and bring all men joy. Even if he did not transgress the law, and stayed in the garden, and was given another to help him, if both he and the new helpmeet kept the commandment to not partake of the fruit it is very possible they would not be able to have children under those conditions as they would not be fallen. He definitely would not be having the children with Eve in that situation. Eve would be left alone in the world to be condemned because mankind would not be. If men were to be, and the commandment to have children to be kept with Eve (not another), Adam HAD to choose at that point what to do. It is like the no win situation. A setup with conflicting positions, and he made the best choice he thought he could. Not that this is so, this is just speculation down the road, but an interesting thing to think about.

It looks like a Jacuzzi Tub. Not one that you usually shower in, but one you take baths of really hot water in. I have one (it has no shower, the bathroom has a shower, but it is separate) which is quite a bit larger. I am always afraid to use it though because I have no idea how to clean it (you would, in theory, need to clean the little spouts underwater that spout water into the tub as well, no idea how to do that).

Good Luck... Though this Sunday in particular, I'm no certain shorter is better considering the circumstances. I guess it depends on what they thought of the Queen and their thoughts on the new King.

Very late to comment on this, but here are some relevant scriptures. From two different points of ideas and ideals, Paul approaches this topic. It is something that has been around for a long time. 2 Corinthians 6 1 Corinthians 7 So, I suppose it would depend on how deep of a relationship you have with the woman and how much she will allow you to practice your faith I suppose. In the end, I would pray and fast about it and seek an answer from the Spirit.

I am the outlier here, though not unexpected. I ascribe, and still say, woman inherently ARE more righteous and attuned to the spirit. Does that mean every woman is more spiritual or attune to the spirit or more righteous than men? No, it doesn't even mean that even a majority of woman are going to be spiritual or righteous. Does it mean that men and woman cannot be equally yoked, or that the woman is always more righteous than the man? Absolutely not. You can have men that are just as righteous and spiritual. We hope that they are equal in spirituality and righteousness. Unfortunately, throughout the past, and in history, we see men more prone to violence, murder, destruction, and all sorts of malicious and nefarious sins against men and heaven. I think there is a reason that we see more woman stay within the confines of spirituality than we do men, and it is NOT because churches are driving men away, but because men are abandoning the churches and following their own desires instead. So, I will say I still feel that woman have an inherent part of their character that is able to make it easier for them to draw close to the spirit. HOWEVER, it does not mean that men are not able to be just as spiritual or righteous. We have men that are far more righteous than most woman, and there are men that are spiritual giants that lead us. It may lead to a massive imbalance in heaven though, where those who were righteous will have far more woman that attain the highest degrees of heaven than men.

I am of the few that would like to see him abdicate and let William take the crown. I think his son has a greater charisma and cleaner past that would help sustain support for the Monarchy well beyond anything King Charles III can do. That is probably a feather dream though, as the King, having been under his mother's tutelage, probably feels abdication is a dirty word.

This is good. I was under the impression that Idaho wasn't really having that bad of a drought though, that most of the problems stem from it having drought in the past, so even if they had a higher amount of water this year in Idaho, they are still recovering from drought prior to this. On the otherhand, the rain seems to hit Western Idaho and then skip right over Utah so Utah hasn't really had any relief from it at all and is in dire conditions right now. 59.2% of people in Idaho falls are members, so out of around 66.5 K, that means around 39K members. The food bank seems to be feeding almost 10% of the population of Idaho Falls, if I read the article right.

I think there are several different ideas and takes on the matter. Here is one of them. It is a slight twist on the ideas of Skousen. A Judge is just as long as they deliver the correct punishment for the law. For example, if the punishment for stealing is to lose a hand, then if someone steals, taking their hand is the punishment. If the punishment for murder is death, than the right punishment for someone who murders someone else is death. BUT...what happens if the Judge is the one who commits the crime or is unjust? What happens if the law becomes unjust? If you have an innocent man, and the judge, knowingly, punishes that man for murder even though the judge knows the man is innocent...who then is the murderer? In this, the judge then is the one who is the one who is at the mercy of the one he unjustly punished. In order for the Judge to remain judge and to retain his spot, he may be willing to grant leniency to others that the one he wronged asks him to grant leniency to. AS the judge is rightfully condemned at this as the guilty party, only the one who was innocent can actually deliver judgement, or be the final arbitrator...interceding when the judge decrees a punishment when the innocent decides that leniency or mercy is necessary. The judge cannot restore that which was taken, thus is in the debt to the one he wronged. The debt equals the amount he is in debt to the innocent he punished. It is upon this idea that mercy can have place, for if the judge demands punishment upon others when the innocent decries it, than punishment must also fall upon the judge as he is also guilty of a crime. Thus, while the judge still has laws and justice is served as he is the judge, mercy can also have a place when the only innocent person in the court asks for leniency lest all the judgment falls upon the judge and laws are no longer enforced.

I'm only an amateur Church Historian, but count me among those not convinced. We actually have several drawings of Joseph Smith from contemporaries of his. Most are consistent with what we see with his Death Mask (though, ironically there have been those that have conjectured that we got the Death Masks for Hyrum and Joseph Switched...which is what I am betting those who are pushing this as Joseph's daguerrotype may eventually fall back onto as well). This daguerrotype doesn't really match the other presentations of Joseph, and even if we accept the switched death mask theory, it really doesn't resemble Hyrum that strongly either. That said If anyone, this has more of a resemblance to Hyrum, but I think @Just_A_Guy has the strongest argument of which I've seen, this looks like a relative of the lady and the picture he posted of her more than it does for an extended connection to Joseph or Hyrum. It doesn't match the other images of Hyrum or Joseph that we have, albeit most being more hand drawn sketches and such rather than intricate paintings of drawings.

That's a more iffy situation. It depends on what one's definition of famine is. When much of the United States is in a drought...does that constitute a famine as it would have 150 years ago, or since we still have enough food due to modern logistics, is it NOT a famine? I eat meat during all the year round, but I don't get excessive about it. We hunt for food (though I am slowing down in my old age, so...maybe not so much anymore) and am a MASSIVE supporter of NO WASTE. That means, you don't kill wantonly or just for trophies. You eat what you kill with thankfulness, and don't toss any of it. You use as much of it as possible. This goes hand in hand with thrift. I am unsure how it goes in Utah or has gone in Utah (I hear the savings are not as extreme), but it used to be we could get almost 500 to 600 pounds of meat for the price of a tag (not in Utah). That's a great way to get food. I remember when I was young, we'd go out with my father and he would have us go through the bushes (no dogs, we were the ones acting as it) to scare the birds up and he'd have a shotgun he'd shoot almost three down as they flew up. We'd also go after other animals for food. I probably eat far more vegetables and fruits when I am at home than most. We do eat meat during non-winter times though. The last meal with meat that I had was probably last Friday, so it's not that we eat it every meal. Last night I had some broccoli thrown in with rice and had cheese over the top for a type of casserole. The night before I had a vegetarian lasagna that my wife made for us. The night before that we had some peppers mixed with guacamole and cilantro tossed in, with the extra that we could eat the avocado's on their own if we wanted. We also had a side of Kiwi fruits to eat on. So, we don't go out of our way to eat meat, but we DO eat it, especially during and after hunting season. I am not perfect though. I'd interpret it more that we should eat meat sparingly, and that the times we should eat it are during times of winter, cold, or famine. I don't follow that strictly, though I think it comes down to respect of the life that you do hunt and kill to eat, and the balance between that and the Word of Wisdom.

Well, the verse says Though, there are some that would call me rather extreme in what I do or do not do (for example, I don't watch R-rated movies, and even PG ones are things I am very cautious about, most have too much violence or other material that I find inappropriate), I think the extremely strict ones go further than just nothing that is called Tea. I have been rather cautious around ANY HOT DRINKS, but it is something I do personally and don't impose on others. I normally avoid any hot drink including Hot Chocolate, as well as soups that are overly hot as well. It is up to each in their own interpretation beyond anything that our leaders have said. Just like some years ago when others tried to say it was caffeine or tannin or other items on why we should not drink coffee or tea, those who said we should avoid ALL hot drinks would talk about throat cancer and the build up of scar tissue for those who drank very hot items. The scalding would cause damage to the throat and eventually could cause a cancer there. These are excuses though, obviously. The reason we don't drink hot drinks or coffee or tea is because we have been told not to by our leaders. Other than that, it is up to our own individual interpretations. I still have soup, but normally don't eat it if it is extremely hot or scalding, preferring to let it cool down first. It is a personal preference of my own interpretation. I have known plenty of others that drink Herbal teas or coffee substitutes.