JohnsonJones

100 acres should not be that expensive in Utah (of course, depending on where you are looking). I can pick up 100 acres for 100K in some areas of Utah when I looked just now. The problem it seem is that there is no water on the property, and no water rights (or mineral rights) that go with the property. They all seem to be in the middle of nowhere with no stores or shops near by, and they are not exactly at 100 acres (some are 40 acres, some or 200+ acres, but they seem to go for around $1000 an acre). Also, no idea if you would actually be allowed to build a house on them as zoning laws probably highly affect those properties. If you want a decent area of land, get land in the area of the Midwest from Iowa down to Kansas. Lots of land at rather cheap prices (ranging anywhere from $3000 to $10,000 an acre, so possible to get 100 acres for less than a million, though I'd imagine it will probably run somewhere between $500,000 and $800,00...without a house on it). Why do you want so much land though? It then falls on what freedoms you enjoy or do not enjoy. Canada probably has a LOT of cheaper land up north. It probably is far cheaper than anything you'd find in the US. It could be 6 to 12 hours from any civilization (that also includes gas stations, so you may have to bring your own gas when you travel). Canada has certain laws which are more restrictive on free speech, and other restrictions on things you may feel are freedoms you have in the US (more restrictive on fire arms, and other things as well). Otherwise, South America has a lot of cheaper property (and you have expat communities there) as well as South East Asia in some areas. Most of these areas have a cheaper price of living. Obviously there are trade offs, and many of the expats that go there to retire do so because it allows them to get more for their money in retirement.

I don't see a problem with the questions you are asking. Seems reasonable to me. Not sure what negative impacts you would be expecting from asking the questions.

I'd imagine like many of the things the Church puts out. Some will, many won't.

Didn't say I agreed with their theories completely (and actually, me and J. McConkie some disagreements on several items), only that it was a thing that was believed by several high ups in the church (and I actually didn't touch upon what I would say were the more scandalous parts of it, it was far more extensive than what I discussed, first time I heard it was from the missionaries and was something that almost lost me from conversion...except that there were other missionaries that said it was not actually doctrine or taught as such in the Church). However, it segued in with what you were talking about regarding the Lord being born under a marriage covenant, which brought that idea to mind.

I think I may have had it, but it would be past tense. I would need an antibody test for this. The local Hospital and clinics which I go to have said that these test are not currently available in my situation (I'm still healthy for example). It would be reassuring to know though. If I haven't had it, and it is as bad as they say, I could be in a rough ride I the fall. On the otherhand, if I've already had it, I was lucky as I didn't have it severe enough to get hospitalized currently, which is a good thing. The problem is, there is no way for me to find out currently.

This gets into a VERY tricky area. It's also VERY hard to explain. There was a teaching that was around when I joined the church. The origins are from a statement made by Brigham Young and later reiterated by Joseph F. Smith. However, they did NOT actually say what the teaching or theory was, and thus is not really anything other than LDS rumor. IT IS something that I discussed directly with Joseph McConkie (and we had our disagreements at the time, but the older I get, the more I tend to agree with his viewpoints), and we had some rather interesting discussions (argumentive discussions?) about it at times. The idea is that Mary WAS married with the conception of the Lord, however that marriage is NOT to Joseph. It was an eternal marriage to the Father of our Lord, and that Joseph is merely a temporary husband for this mortality. Joseph and Mary's marriage is for time, while the marriage to the Father of our Lord is the sealing or eternal marriage covenant Mary made and which the lord was conceived upon.

I'm going to say that Scott's description of Espouse is the one that is normally seen as correct. Historically, it could be seen as the formal contract between two people that they will get married. It is legally binding. It is far stronger than an engagement, but a legal item. To get out of that contract, one would have to legally break it. It has ramifications of doing so. Thus, Joseph, having already signed that contract (or his parents, though most feel Joseph was older and this would have been of his own volition) would need to break it in some manner if he wished to get out of it. He could have broken it publically. This would be harsh, as in such a situation it would be seen as akin to adultery on Mary's part (fornication literally, but as it was a contract, much more serious). If he secretly did it, via trying to do things behind the scenes, her chances of avoiding punishment under Jewish law were better. Putting her away publically would mean bad things (technically, she could be put to death, but those punishments were not as common in those days). This is NOT the marriage though. They still were not married as of yet from how I understand it. Marriage was the fulfillment of the contract. I think they WERE married by the time the Lord was born. In addition, they had not consummated the marriage. This can be a tricky thing, as in some ancient cultures, even if you had been married by LAW, it was not considered official until it was consummated. The evidence is that Mary was married to Joseph when they went to be taxed. It makes no sense for her to be travelling with him under his family heritage (each to their own place to be taxed) unless they were married, at least legally. At the same time, it is possible that they had not consummated the marriage, thus the term of espoused could still work, and actually for Christians at the time who believed it to be a VIRGIN birth, actually a very important point. To be a virgin birth, there could be no consummation done.

Politicians tend to be hypocritical...so nothing new there... That's an interesting take on the gender differences...and while it is actually true that it is a social construct in many ways, the way many see it is not. I'm not sure how to explain it right off, plus it probably is lengthy enough to be another thread. I'd say there could be different points of view, one of which you mention which I assume you disagree with, and one which I assume you would agree with regarding boys, girls, and gender. Short answer, the one the media doesn't want to touch upon...Protests. A mask, like a seatbelt may offer some protection, but it's not going to stop injury if you ignore all other safety measures and ram your car into a concrete barrier at 120 MPH (193KPH) right at the edge of a 1000 foot drop which when your car jumps the barrier due to the speed, you also fall into. A mask is not a magical spell which makes one immune, it simply offers some protection when used with other measures (social distancing, etc). That said, I'm not a doctor, so I don't know all the exact percentages a mask will or will not help. However, using your number you presented above (and I think that's a BIG IF), if it only helps prevent 20% transmission, that's still a significant enough percent that I'll use a mask. With Social distancing it will increase my odds. On the otherhand, if we go to in class instruction this fall, I fully expect that I'll have the Corona virus within a month if I haven't had it already, even IF I wear a mask and we social distance (studies that I've seen show that if you are inside for over 15 minutes, that the recirculated air and other items increase your risk. With hour to 1 1/2 hour long classes, I'd say it's almost a guarantee that I'm going to get it eventually, with or without a mask).

I'm not quite as liberal as that I suppose. I think environmental protection within REASON is a good thing, but going overboard at times causes a lot of trouble and pain for very little gain. Yes, we should be concerned about our environment and I think it is a VERY REAL concern, but there are times I think that there are people that go WAAAAY overboard with this (nicknamed treehuggers in that they will chain themselves to trees to prevent them from being cut, or those that are against public hunting which is a way that conservationist actually help keep the balance of animals today...etc). Social equality I support as well as education (obviously, as I like to get paid). On the otherhand, I'm actually rather opposed to the idea of a strong central government in many instance. The constitution says that we need to have it for defense (and so defense spending should not be something we are opposed to in my opinion), but there are many areas which I think a weak central government is the better choice. A prime example today would be what we see in other nations where the censor the freedom of speech (though there are those who are trying to make this a reality in the US as well). People think that it's a good thing that others cannot spew their hatred freely, and have made laws against it. However, as we see...who determines what is or is not hate speech. That same freedom that allows one to burn the flag could be removed just as easily as the freedom to say we do not believe in Gay Marriage being ordained of God (both of which could be viewed as hate speech in some nations today even). I support helping the poor, the elderly, and others under our current system, but that is only because we (as a people right now) don't have a better way to provide the same necessities. I DO think if we were all righteous to the point where we were as the Nephites after the Savior came, there would be no need for government involvement with that either (but I do not think most people are anywhere close to that today..as of yet) as all would work hard and be provided as they needed with no one lacking the necessities of life. It's a conundrum, but overall, I think at times we hand too much power to the government when we should not be doing so. Another example that I've been opposed to since the day they created it (and not just because it prevents family members from seeing me off or greeting me home at the airport gates on my annual trips) is the Patriot Act. I do not know why BOTH sides keep renewing it, as I think it's a great threat to freedom and liberty. It's a precursor (in my opinion) of things that could be in the future if we tread down that path. It gave the government too much power over us. At the same time though, I think we appreciate the roads, the national parks, the border patrol, and many other elements which derive from our central government today...so...once again, a conundrum in regards to how I feel about a strong central government vs. a weaker central government.

??? I actually avoid talking about any details of ordinances and such items in that regards typically, so I'm not sure what you are referring to. I try to actually keep holy the things that should be kept holy rather than discuss information regarding things in the temple in that regards. There are things that if we wish to discuss about the temple should only be discussed IN the temple. If it is information about the temple, I HAVE gone to the Church site and taken information directly from it (quoted it) and linked to it in several instances. I figure that taking quotes and information directly from the Church itself is acceptable in discussing things that occur with the temple, but I find it weird that you would interpret that as presenting something different about the plan of salvation. Most of the stuff from the church website (off the top of my head) normally doesn't go into the Plan of Salvation in regards to the temple's from what I recall, though it may touch on things that are important about it such as temple ordinances as found here... Temple ordinances and covenants If they release information on the Temple, I may go into publically available information, or history regarding it, but in general, I don't talk or reference things (as far as I can I recall at least) pertaining to ideas or other subjects that may concern the temple or what goes on inside of them except with reference to the Church's stuff (What the church says is okay to talk about, which normally is found from their site).

I think change is happening very quickly in many aspects of our society, both Liberal and Conservative. In regards to Liberals, it pertains to Democrats and the Democrat party in the US. It has been occurring since at least the 60s. They started trying to appeal to a greater base (which is understandable, any political party wants a broader base) but in their case, it started more to change who their base was. As that base changed, it also changed some of their approaches and ideas. Today many who would have original been part of the Communist party or other parties similar to it have instead joined the Democrat party. They carry labels that identify them as separate from the mainstream democrats, but utilize the Democrat party to push their own agendas. The reason seems to be that they realized they could not win in the US without being part of one of the two major parties, and thus melded into the Democrats to form a Far left and Liberal wing of the Democrats. This (along with the base change of members) has made a shift of axis in the Democrats to be more left or further left, a change that seems to be accelerating. There are still many Democrats that are NOT part of this, however, and lean far more towards the middle. Many of these more traditional Democrats are more conservative than some Republicans. You see change in the Republican party as well. 30 years ago, Trump could never have won the nomination, much less become President. Republicans would not have stood for his immorality if they knew about it (in my opinion). Today, Republicans have a split in their party as well, which has made it harder for them to win some contests. You have some that have moved further to the Right and to the extremes, but at the same time you have those that have moved much further towards a liberal front that accepts things such as Big Budgets, Big spending, Gay Marriage, and a strong central federal government (something that used to be seen as a democrat idea, but is now in many ways also pushed by Republicans, just in different areas today than Democrats). Change is happening very quickly, but I think it is happening in many areas of life in the US (and the world, but that is too broad of a topic currently). It may be that this acceleration is the pre-cursor to the Millennial reign of our Lord, but with the speed it is accelerating it could mean very dark times are for us up ahead (or at least for those who are religious and stand by their religious values).

??? That's a pretty strong accusation... I'm not sure I understand what you are referring to. Most of what I get from the Plan of Salvation comes from 5 sources. The Teachings of Joseph Smith (along with the D&C and Church History), Brigham Young (and the Journal of Discourses), Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith and Joseph Fielding Smith. I also have Bruce R. McConkie, though most of his is just reiteration of what the others stated previously. Furthermore, normally I have backed up much of what I've quoted from them (FAR MORE than almost anyone on this site, which makes for longer posts at times) as well as normally quote the official church's website in many things (and far more than most on this site as well) so, this is kind of a weird surprise that you seem to be slinging... Trying to understand it in the context of what you define a liberal is, are you saying that I place individual belief over that of the teachings currently in the Church regarding the plan of salvation? I tend to go more towards the foundations of what was taught, up until at least the end of the 20th century, and as far as I know, the church hasn't really changed what is taught on the Plan of salvation today... What views are you saying are against the teachings of the Church???

In relation to this, though I haven't heard this in the church for a long time, I learned about another take on this from the Church (well, not from the Catholic Church, but from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). What they taught was that for our understanding was that those who were wives (in the Bible) were those who were eternally sealed to their Husbands. They had been married for time and all eternity through the power of the Priesthood. Those who were concubines were not married under the power of the Priesthood, and thus were not only for time, but were not recognized as marriages under the covenants of the Lord. Thus, they were concubines rather than full wives. Probably absolutely nothing....

I'm not actually as Liberal as Faust was...but I DO appear to be politically liberal compared to many here. The IRONY I see though... is that in comparison to Many here, I'd put me AND Faust as Religiously (in regards to the Church) CONSERVATIVE in comparison to many here. It is interesting that BOTH viewpoints are normally unpopular. Conservative in this instance refers to someone who tends more towards the older ideas and beliefs (as were taught when I joined the church) rather than some of the newer and modern ideas that are popular today. A prime example is interpretation of Blacks and the Priesthood. The popular ideas today is to discredit the older prophets who said such things were doctrine (and this idea is even backed up by Church essays, which ignore that the things they said were not considered opinion and were actually declared as doctrine on several occasions). I on the otherhand see their declarations as part of their roles as a prophet and understanding the WHY's of those declarations actually helps explain a LOT about the pre-existence, our roles here, and why things in this life are actually completely justified and even merciful when seen as the whole picture rather than the injustice that many point out this mere temporary existence seems to exude. In that, I see the Blacks receiving the priesthood more as a fulfillment of prophecy and revelation, rather than a correction of racism for which the church needs to apologize (a popular thing I've seen these days from some young people who accept that the reason they were barred was simply due to racism...which...if it was...they may actually be correct in regards to apologies and reparations). My slant on these things are DEFINATELY unpopular though, but it is a far more conservative slant than the standard view...which is one reason I'd say I'm religiously conservative, even if politically more liberal than many here.

Did you just quote a Liberal and a Democrat in this thread (both are the same guy, Elder Faust)?