JohnsonJones

I hadn't even heard of it until now. Looks to be a documentary type film. It looks like there is a VAST difference between the film critics reviews and the audience reviews (Critics going down as far as 22% approval and Audience reviews on some sites going up as high as 88%).

Not all the supporters of Hamas are driven by that. Many of the main monetary funders are actually living in luxury in other nations. In Gaza it seems you are either for or against them. If you are against them, expect that they and their supporters will take everything from you. The Hospitals, for example, have enough to support themselves, or they DID. Hamas stole fuel and supplies from them. Even with the neutral medical parties (such as the UN medical staff) saying they were neutral and trying to say what Hamas told them to say, Hamas still stole all their stuff. This is why Israel had the siege...because anything they sent to help people in Gaza would simply be taken (or given in many cases) from them to help Hamas. Another hope was that those in Gaza would hear the appeals to take on Hamas and either convince them, or take the hostages and send them back to Israel. The People of Gaza did not do this. Gaza itself is on a beautiful area where if the people had actually CHOSEN to pursue making money and getting a better life, they had the prime area to do so. Instead...well...we see where we are now. A LOT of what has happened in Gaza is by CHOICE of those who live there. Hamas is only in power today because people choose to allow them to be in power. The reason things are as they is because those in Gaza have managed to make everyone else in the region (including Israeli Palestinians and Arabs) from the surrounding nations (such as Jordan and Egypt) have no desire to deal with the ramifications of what the Palestinians do in their nations (aka...try to disrupt or overthrow their governments as well). Even when they are given food, nice things, and helped in other nations, these attitudes to disrupt the other nations and local governments seem to erupt. This is also part of their problems and why Gaza is like it is. No one wants to help out anymore there (or the help has been greatly reduced) due to them biting the hands that try to help...repeatedly. However, it's gotten much worse as we saw with the recent incursion to Israel. They have sworn to commit another holocaust and kill all the Jews (and why people support such an idea is beyond me...Hamas preys on the idea that they are poor and downtrodden by Israel, but they are also perhaps some of the most ardent pushers of a Holocaust since the Nazi's...perhaps even more so), but HOW they would try to do such things were not so horrific in appearance (they appear to approve door to door and torture now) as they have become. It's not just the attack that is bad. It's not just their doctrine which is bad. (And both of those would be horrific in and of themselves). It is also HOW they perpetrated that attack upon innocent civilians (and not just Jews in this case, and not just Israelis) and bragged about it. It's HOW they seem to relish in it, and are proud of what they did and seemingly are supported by those around them as well. They seem to have no regrets about what they did and if given the chance, have seemingly pointed that not only would they do it again, they'd do worse if they could. This is why Israel is doing what they are doing. Is it self-defense?...I'd say so...but others may have different opinion.

I'm not sure what the difference between 2, 3, and 4, are, but combining the music and spiritual quotes and scriptures I think is great!

Off Topic. But on the thoughts of Texas... I expect I'll be traveling to Texas this coming April in order to see the Eclipse (everyone, pray that it is clear enough so that we can actually see the eclipse while there). I'm not sure whether I'll be coming in from the East side via Houston yet, or coming in from the North via Oklahoma yet though.

It seems (And Alma the Younger would have also had this occur earlier in the Book of Mormon), that upon having the Spirit testify to them, people tend to fall into a coma like state. Has anyone ever had anyone in this modern era fall into a coma like state upon having the "shock" of conversion fall upon them? I have a grandkid or two I'd wish would have this conversion come upon them, that they turn from the world like they have and come back to the Church.

It's running around $2.50 to 2.60 East of Texas. It seems the further West you get, the more expensive fuel gets. I wonder why that is? I think it's easier in the East Coast where a lot of urban areas are closer together. Out West, especially in areas past the Dakotas in the Northern Western areas, and past the Middle of Texas (into that wide barren area of West Texas where nothing seems to be) I don't know how someone could survive with only an electric vehicle. Things are so far apart out there it's ridiculous in comparison to the East. From Utah, from Las Vegas to California is a long barren zone where you even have to watch your fuel. Up north from SLC to Reno is even worse...a LOT worse! I don't know how someone would manage with an EV for that distance without turning an 8 hour trip into a multi-day event perhaps...if they could find charging stations along the way. I think Washington State also has a similarly long period of barren areas where even Gas can be difficult to find at times in the span going Westward out of Spokane (at least if memory serves right).

Tricky, this is not official doctrine that I am aware of... I have heard that the Patriarchial Order, or specifically, that Order of Priesthood that you cannot enter singly, but must enter with a spouse and obtain when you obtain a celestial Marriage, is the Highest Order of Priesthood. On that, I have the following sections from the Church's site on a quick look (I've had better sources previously, talks from apostles and such, but that would take a lot longer to search out and find). Blessings of the Patriarchal Order From Bruce R. McConkie From our own Prophet today, but before he was a prophet and was an apostle. From Ezra Taft Benson

Wow, you are a great singer! (at least I think some of those videos are you singing). Others on these forums should check out your videos if they haven't already!

Actually, it's normally not homophobia, but charity from the ones I've discussed it with. One of the more recent talking points we had prior to class (when some of these discussions go) was about states that want to stop giving out free lunches (and/or breakfasts) to children. It seemed that many of them felt that those states with higher Conservative/Christian groups that were Republicans were the ones who didn't want to have children fed at school for free, or were begrudging funds to feed children under the auspices that some who had wealthier families could get fed along with those in need. Many had a problem with the thought that those in these states felt the solution then was to just not feed the kids in general. Thus, those who were above the guidelines for free lunch, but poorer in general, should have children that didn't get fed and such. It seems it's normally along the lines of Jesus taught charity and that the poor were more humble than the Rich, but today's society in the US seems to be adverse to charity and praise the rich and put them on a footstool, with many Christians being the epitomy of this. Homophobia can be in there (normally under the guise of, one should love their neighbor as theyself), but the main thrust normally seems to center on Charity and concern and love for those less able than you...normally in the financial sense (as I said, my own thoughts at times on this...meaning not theirs...is this is because over half of them are probably also struggling financially. They are starving college students probably...and when you are struggling with money that probably occupies a lot of your thought process).

I guess it depends on WHY you think we were in Vietnam. Most today seem to believe the very liberal talking points of the Hippies from back then, and by that measure...of course we were not victorious. What that talking point misses is their idea of victory was never what we were after in the first place. ON the otherhand, We HALTED the advance of Communism overall, prevented world war 3 from happening in reality, won the Cold War, and preserved the freedom of many of the other nations in that sphere of influence. The only reason we got the North Vietnamese to the table in the first place was we bombed the heck out of them until they capitulated to do so. At that point, most of the reasons we had to even be there we over. Our purpose was never to actually take over or to force the other side to accept our way of life. That was a major difference in how we had fought wars in the past and Vietnam. But I digress. I see things very differently than many of the younger generations since then.

I think this is a problem that is not actually factored in to a degree. The point I've heard over this is that Church's regularly ignore the teachings of the New Testament. The most recent was actually in National News (so not from Young People at all) where it was pointing out that Church's were ignoring or outright trying to teach against what the Lord taught. The reason was that it was seen that the teachings of the Lord in the New Testament were too liberal and thus did not equate with the political ideas of the congregations. I've heard some young folks say that this feels like Churches today are hypocritical. They feel that the things taught in the New Testament are actually teaching something that's been termed in modern times as Religious Socialism or Religious Communism. I've said this before as well, though I am still deeply religious and hold strongly to my Church, that the things taught and lived in the New Testament as well as the early Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints during the 19th century equated to the same ideas of Religious Socialism and Religious Communism (not to be confused with Marxist Socialism which is where a LOT of conservatives get confused about and upon). There is something referring to a false image of our Lord but propped up by Conservatives where the Lord pushes the Supply Side rather than Charity. This is due to the idea that many young people actually LIKE what is taught in the New Testament but see it as teaching things such as feed the poor, help those who need help, love they neighbor. They feel that many of the people who are members of the Churches these days may pay service to those things with their lips, but in actual practice, do the exact opposite. This is where I think there is a dichotomy of thought in the Republican and Democrat parties. The Republicans tend to lean more towards Moral Chastity (being more Chaste in action, no homosexual relations, etc), which is where they win over many of the Church going members. However, they seem to be very against the idea of Charity in general as a society. On the otherhand you have Democrats that seem to focus more on the Charity aspects, but completely abandon Chastity. The best combination may be a combination of the two of those (Chastity AND Charity). Young people unfortunately (at least where I teach) seem to want to ignore the Chastity portion and try to make any and all excuses on not following it, but are all in their thoughts about the Charity parts (perhaps because over half of them are starving students). Hence, why they probably lean more liberal in some ways and see Church going members trending towards Conservative values as not following the teachings of the Lord or the New Testament. I see this as well. On the religious side though, we see in Genesis 2:15 that Adam was taken to the Garden to take care of it. He basically was told to be in charge of it and take care of it. We can apply this to the world as well. We should be doing our best to take care of the world as best we can (as well as other people). I think the bigger question is how we actually can do that. There is a lot of political raff to confuse the picture at times of what is actually true and what is not. There is a LOT of media sensationalism that fogs up the picture at times of what actually is occurring in regards to pollution and climate change. I think sometimes we do NOT focus enough on the more widespread sins of Fornication. WE also don't focus as much on Adultery which is terribly rampant, but fornication is far more rampant among our young folks. That said, many of the young folks don't want to be reprimanded for their own infidelities in these matters, and Churches don't want to make a lot of their young folks angry. It's safer to target the sins of Homosexuality and such because there are less of them out there. ALL the sins of immorality (fornication, adultery, homosexuality, etc) should be addressed, but I see a lot of avoidance in regards to fornication, though it is probably the most prevalent of all the immoralities practiced among young people today. I'm not sure that would bring them back to church though. They seem to already know what they are doing is against what is in the scriptures, and seem to want to make excuses on why it's okay for them to do so, or other such things. Yes, there are similarities, though overall I think we, as a Church are doing better to a small degree on the immorality, or WERE prior to 2015. More of our young people who were ACTIVE (in otherwords, were active in going to church and it's activities) were obeying the law of chastity (compared to a national average of less than 5% of US citizens were following the law of chastity, 95% were having pre-marital relations of that sort). That was when we actively taught about obeying the law of chastity and certain rules about not seeing certain films with a hard top set at R-rated movies and a hard bottom of the age 16 for dating (we have since gotten rid of those so, not sure how it will go in the future). We know this was going to occur though. It says in the Bible about the last days and how wickedness will only increase. It will probably only get worse as time goes on, up until the coming of the Lord to rule the earth comes.

Oh dear, my wife already says that to me quite a bit.

You could post links to it so we could check it out?

And I've been thinking more on it this weekend. I think it's not necessarily genocide that's the missing part, but submission. After World War 2, the reason the rehabilitation of Japan and Germany was possible was because they were so beaten that they were willing to be rehabilitated. In Vietnam, though we technically beat the tar out of them and won overall, we never forced the North to really submit completely. We may have accomplished our goals overall, but we didn't have the goal to have the enemy conform to our way of life and thus didn't bring it about. I think that for a drastic change to happen in Gaza the people of Gaza will have to be so beat down that they are willing for a change to what others want them to change to. That means the civilians would have to be so adverse to Hamas that they would literally choose something other than Hamas to support. They would have to be willing to do a complete and total surrender, they'd have to be willing to do whatever the Israeli's would have them do and be adverse to Hamas. As Japan and Germany show us, that doesn't have to result in a Genocide of the people, but it would probably mean the death knell for some of the organizations (such as HAMAS). I suppose the better question then is whether Israel would be able to do what is needed (or allowed to do so, if they wished to and the world would let them...which the world thus far has not been) in order to do this? How far would they have to go in order to get those who live in Gaza to actually surrender and submit (two different things)? Edit: Of course, part of that is the modern war and modern mores which try to prevent War from being as ugly as it has in the past. The problem is, War was ugly in the past to accomplish the submission of others. It's the ugliness that makes us want to finally be done with it. To get a submission the horror of it has to be so clear and so near that submission seems to be the only option for survival.

I did. If you had read below you'd realize that wasn't the rest of my one sentence answer. It was putting in context another question for you to answer with one sentence. I even clarified that the first sentence was the answer I was giving and then gave a TLDR answer. I would prefer you answer the question I asked, as it pertains to my thought process. In the writing above, you miss the context of what I am referring to. I'm not promoting the wipeout of all Palestinians. I AM wondering at what point it is justified to simply level Gaza and leave it a smoking crater. The United States destroyed areas of Afghanistan completely that were larger than Gaza (to put it into context). Multiple Daisy cutters did crazy damage there at times. Afghanistan (from what I understand) was hit in more rural areas with those Daisy Cutters though. A Majority of Palestinians do not live in Gaza. If you took out Gaza though, it would still be considered a genocide. That said, in answer to your question...in our context, probably not because you haven't provided the context of the incidents nor is it a big enough disaster for international news. HOWEVER, taking it more in context of what I am talking about, the answer is yes, it could be a good consideration to close down certain wards or even stakes at times. I have seen incidents where Missionaries did some rather bad things in an area and that area was then closed down for missionaries. It's not just the recent attacks that have me pondering this though. That's just the capstone. We have incidents where non-palestinians get to Gaza and get brutalized. They just simply go after people and hurt them. It's not a safe area. This isn't Hamas that attack, but the people of Gaza itself. It's been known not to go in for a while. If you can go to one of the safer areas you would have heard some pretty vile rhetoric. It's not just a few people there, it's widespread. Now it's spilled out. Some, who have seen the images of what they've done are horrified. What they did is NOT civilized (war is not civilized, but there are some things which you can at least try to do. What Hamas did was the exact opposite. Anything that would be considered against the rules of warfare...they tried to do). All that wording, all the things they said they wanted to do...they were not joking. They were absolutely honest over all those years. Once you see that, you can't unsee. They do not just want their own place. They do not just want their own land. They do not just want to have the Jews out of the area. They want to massacre and kill the jews in the most horrific manner possible. They do not appear that they will ever change. They will just keep coming until they succeed. Eventually, if they ever get power (and no one can predict the future, some day it is very likely if they, as a people survive, they WILL get that type of power), they WILL do as they have said they would. At that point, all we will be able to say is that they told us their intentions and for some reason, we decided to ignore it all. The closest I can see is some of the Indian Conflicts in the United States that we do not talk about because it paints some of the tribes in a bad light. These tribes would take and torture settlers. Their style of warfare was designed around wiping out (we aren't talking about a simple, kill until someone surrenders, they did not accept surrender, they killed everyone. Think little Big Horn, but it includes any non-combatants as well). The United States responded in kind (not torture, they'd just kill the tribes). Situations between Native Americans and the United States were at times just as brutal (genocide was seen as acceptable to a degree. If you look at the numbers, the United States did a genocide on some of the Indian tribes more successfully than many other genocides done on purpose throughout history (not the most successful, but they killed a LOT of Native Americans, and some tribes were almost wiped out by the US). So, how does that reflect on what should be done to HAMAS and Gaza? It boils down to the answer I gave you above. or even shorter (which I also gave above). I don't know. I am undecided. I am trying to figure it out currently. What I've seen over the past two weeks has utterly revolted me. I don't see how those in Gaza can support Hamas at this point. I've framed it how I see it and I don't know what the solution is? I don't think most who say they are supporting the Palestinians and to a degree, Hamas currently, understand what Hamas is or what they've declared or what they actually did (and showed...they showed that everything they said in the past that they intend to do was not just bluster...they REALLY actually mean that, they mean the eradication of the Jewish People). I think we give Israel to little credit though. The US, through past action, has shown they would be far more aggressive towards someone who did this to us on a relatively similar scale. We would be crying out for blood the day after. Israel has shown GREAT restraint in what they've done. I don't know what the solution is. I know if I had a rabid dog that was threatening my family what I'd decide to do. Can I apply the same ideology to this? I don't know. It's not an easy question to answer in my mind currently.

Is it? The traditional definition of Damnation is eternal punishment in Hell. I don't see the three degrees of glory as doing that. If you tone it down to merely being torture and punishment in the afterlife...I still don't feel the three degrees are torture and punishment. They are a reward. It shows the great mercy and love of our Father and the Savior that even those worthy of a Telestial Glory are given such. It is not a punishment nor is it torture, it is a glory of heaven given to those as an eternal reward. I know those who claim that if they don't get the Celestial Kingdom they will regret it or be sad...but how do we know that? My feeling is that we basically will go where we choose to go. Those that do not want to go to the Celestial Kingdom will choose not to because they would be uncomfortable if they were there. It would be torture for them to be there and they will realize it. So they will go to a place where they will be most comfortable and happy instead. In a like manner, the only ones that do not get to a glory of heaven are those who reject it. They will NOT accept the atonement and thus by their own choice choose to go to outer Darkness.

It doesn't MATTER what you may feel or think, just as it doesn't matter what I may feel or think. The question posted is WHY people are acting as they are and what are some reasoning behind it. I understand what some of them are. It is as I said. They read these essays. When the Church says they don't accept the explanations of why the ban was put into place... Well...that means they don't accept the explanations. How much more clear can that be? The explanation was that it was revelation and doctrine. The Church doesn't accept that explanation (as per the essay). [The Church says they don't accept any of the explanations...how can it be more clear than that?] That's how it is understood. Doesn't matter if you and I say it means something different. This is a major problem for many people. They've referenced ME to these essays with the exact reasoning that I've given to you. This is what they use to try to discourage people (I know, they've tried to target me with this reasoning that I've relayed in this thread). If they WANT it to be understood other than how some people understand it, they need to revise how it is written. I actually agree. It does seem at times that those who are in charge of the Essays and the things stated by the Apostles are on different pages at times on certain subjects though. The Essays are NOT Church doctrine. They shouldn't be accepted as such. I see that they are being used by some to try to claim it though. HOWEVER, I do completely agree with your take. But if that's the reason they are having problems with the Church and leaving it, I think there could be things that could be done on our part to change that.

So, while I answered your question I can expect you will not answer mine?

That is one of several items. If we are addressing the Preisthood ban it specifically states This goes contrary to what was originally stated and believed. This was not the justification given. If we want to say it, this is actually very close to gaslighting what actually happened in my lifetime. The explanation for this was that it was revelation (which, as the essay states, is not accepted as an explanation today). It was also official doctrine. It was stated to be DOCTRINE when I joined the church. It was being fulfilled during my lifetime (and we saw it being fulfilled in many ways with Spencer W. Kimball). The Church prior to that had this doctrine reinforced in several ways. One of the more famous today is a Statement from George Albert Smith from 1949 which states This is why the revelation to the Prophet and the Twelve was such an astounding and marvelous revelation when it came. It was prophecy being fulfilled (a prophecy that had also been made by Brigham Young and later others such as Wilford Woodruff). Bruce R. McConkie had said to the effect that the African American would not get the Priesthood and then, after the revelation, had to stand and bear his testimony and retract that to reassure us that this was indeed revelation. He had been wrong with how soon it would be fulfilled. It was being fulfilled in our DAY!!! Part of the reason WHY some saw there was a restriction also applied to others who did NOT have a genealogy tied to Africa as well. We STILL have this restriction in place TO THIS DAY. (this does NOT mean this WAS the reason, only that some SAW it as the reason...it was NOT because they necessarily saw those with genealogy from Africa as Inferior or any other nonsense, at least where I was at). The restriction boiled down to choices in the pre-existence. We made choices in the pre-existence that affect where we are and what opportunities we have in this life. This is why there are those today that may not have the opportunies others have. In some instances it constrains what we can obtain or not obtain in this life. We may not understand things (for example). It is this reason why we at times do not cause those who are severely handicapped in certain manners to be baptized or to receive the priesthood. That many would use these very essays against the Church and what it is teaching is NOT surprising. To ACT surprised at how it is being interpreted by others is to ignore what is happening to some who read and interpret these essays. It is to ignore many who use them as a primary method to instill doubt in young members today online. These Essays have turned into POWERFUL anti-LDS tools that are used on a regular basis along with other items (which I won't bring up here, because frankly they aren't Church supported items and have no purpose in being here). So, we may not necessarily see it in this manner (which you point out), but it is absolutely seen in this manner by some out there and it has affected them in the way I have described. It's not just this essay either, there are other essays that they utilize as well.

I think it's a harder question to answer than people make it out to be. That's the answer. An even shorter answer would be... I don't know. That's the answer. Remember, just 30 years ago that was the Strategy of the United States of America towards the USSR and the Eastern Bloc. It is STILL a limited strategy that we hold as one to use in case of nuclear attack on the United States (we literally have the strategy to genocide RACES of people in some cases as we eliminate the nation they are found in by carpeting their land with nuclear weapons). Is it the right strategy to have? I don't know. Now, you can answer this. If a family came up to wipe out your entire family and killed your kid, would you allow them to kill the rest of your family, or how would you react?

I don't view it that way. I know some that do, but I do not. I view anything that is in the Kingdom of Heaven as one of the Glories of Heaven. It is not a Hell, it is a glory.

edit: Upon re-reading my own post, I see it may not be as clear as I intend. I apologize for any weakness of my own trying to convey what I mean. This is a tough one in my opinion. The Church itself on it's own website is claiming this already in the Gospel Essays. I find it has confused a great many. I've seen youth use these gospel Essays as the PRIMARY reasoning for their having opinions contrary to the Church and even proclaiming ideas that the prophet today is not the prophet. That if a prophet can retroactively proclaim what another said was divinely inspired as just an opinion, than neither is divinely inspired nor a prophet. That actually troubles me. It has left a wide rift among many and I have no answers on this. My only thought is that the prophets of the past are inspired and divinely led as well as those today. The differences are how those doctrines are understood. I'll elaborate in a PS below as how this works isn't really pertinent to what I want to say. The problem today is that people see two things as facts that they should not see. 1. When they declare the Church is true, what they mean is that the Church is perfect in every way. When they find out that the Church can have problems or even difficulties it deals a powerful blow to their testimony. If their testimony was based on the idea that the Church was perfect and they find out that it is not...then they have a conflict where facts don't support their belief. It can cause a crisis which some do not survive. 2. When they say they believe in the Prophet they mean that they believe the Prophet is infallible. They believe he is just as perfect as a Deity. When they find he may have faults or is just a man, this can cause a Crisis. Facts do not support what they believe, and as such can cause them to lose their entire testimony because their testimony was based on a falsehood. This is where the core thing comes in. We SHOULD recognize that our Church leaders are MEN. They are HUMAN. They are NOT deities and are NOT who we worship. We should follow what they teach and do what they say (for example, if the prophet says that we should all get rebaptized, we get rebaptized. If the prophet says we all should wear masks and get vaccinated, we should all wear masks and get vaccinated). However it does not mean we necessarily see him as anything greater than any other member. HE IS the mouthpiece of the Lord, but he is ALSO a person and a member just like you, or me, or others. Trying to hold him to inhuman measurements when he is just a human is bound to cause problems eventually. (edit: This is where I do not know if I am being clear enough. HE IS holy and he IS the mouthpiece of the Lord, but to expect him to be perfect or be greater than a man is unrealistic expectations. Our prophet is chosen by the Lord for certain things which we may or may not know or understand. This is not necessarily because he is the most righteous or the greatest among us, but because he is the RIGHT individual for that position at THAT time [just like any other calling hopefully]. To expect him to be the most perfect or righteous individual of the church, or even greater, a perfect being, is only setting our faith in false expectations that probably could never be fulfilled. I see far too many setting up this expectation of the prophet in their lives though. He COULD be the most righteous and the greatest, but it is not necessarily true either. What we HAVE to understand though is that HE IS a man, just like us, and AS a man he is Not yet perfect as only the Lord is perfect). I think one problem today is we've raised many of our children to think of things in a higher status than they should. Rather than see the Church as the vehicle for ordinances and covenants, they see it THE thing of worship. Instead of seeing that the Church is made for man, they see that man is made for the Church and it's perfection. Rather than see that the Prophet is merely the mouthpiece of the Lord and his representative to use, they see him as the Lord's avatar in the Flesh. This is bound to cause problems and I think it is causing problems. PS: In reference to the above, a prime example is the Adam/God theory. As people from Joseph F. Smith and Joseph Fielding Smith explain, the way Brigham Young said it and meant it actually perfectly supports the same way we believe today. The PROBLEM is that shortly after Brigham Young, his words were misunderstood and as such got reinterpreted to mean something entirely different than what he meant. If you understand Brigham's method of talking, you can understand perfectly what he said, but if you do not understand that method, you take it to mean something that does NOT represent what we believe. The problem came then that there were many who started to believe this theory meant something entirely different than what Brigham Young stated or intended it to be. They felt that it meant that Adam (or Michael) was the Father who is the Father of our Lord in spirit and flesh. This was incorrect, and as this idea became the meaning of what was meant when people mentioned this theory, that theory as it was understood in that way, had to be disavowed. We DID NOT throw away Brigham Young's speeches of it in the JoD, nor did we try to erase Brigham Young's teachings. We only disavowed the changed understanding that utilized the label and as that was the label used, disavowed it. I think the same could be said of some of the other teachings these days and how some people are understanding them. They understand it with a modern lens without actually understanding what was said. It is their current understanding of the thing which is being disavowed, not the teachings and doctrine that Brigham Young taught himself, and that applies to other prophets and such as well.

I think at my age, it's not going to matter much if I survive or die. It's all pretty quickly over anyways. However, that brings up another thought I've had often enough. It doesn't really matter if one lives to the second coming or not. If they die, they personally have their second coming at that point...and the decisions to be righteous or wicked come to bear at that point rather than having to wait X number of years for the Savior to return to rule this world in glory.

There is a desire to lump them all into one group. In the Gaza Strip, a GUESS on my part is that at least 75% of the population there support HAMAS. This is not all of the Palestinians. Gaza Strip is actually only one portion where Palestinians live. There are many of them in other parts of Israel and the adjoining areas (The West Bank for example). Ironically, what I hear is HAMAS has sworn the destruction of Israel and the death of every Jew there, but I haven't actually heard how they would deal with those who are NOT Jewish in Israel. From how they've acted I'm not sure they will make much distinction, but I do not know. Palestinians as individuals differ greatly. I know some as individuals that are great people. As a people though, they tend to create problems in many areas (not just Israel) that they go. This has caused problems with some of those that may be their friends otherwise.

That's been the strategy previously though. The plan during the Cold War was to wipe one group of people off the face of the earth before they could do it to you. The chances of it being successful quickly enough though pretty much guaranteed MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) which is why it never occurred. However, the strategy was to wipe out the other side, eradicate them much more fully than almost any other genocide has ever done in the history of the world. We did it to the Nazi's overall in World War 2, though that was also successful due to other factors besides straight up killing them all. We would have been forced to do it to the Japanese in World War 2 if Nuclear Bomb strategy had not worked to convince them to surrender (and it almost didn't). The British did it to the Indian Cults (not to be confused with the Native Americans) as they fought several groups in India. The United States practically did it during myriad Indian Wars (Native American Wars) on this continent. In the Bible it's what Joshua was ordered to do (though, as it wasn't completed, they were scourged by that decision for centuries after). If you have a nest of vipers in your child's room, do you try to move them to another place when the animal control can come collect them and move them to the wilderness, or do you try to kill them all as soon as possible? If it was a choice between having your entire family eradicated and tortured to death in a lingering and painful execution or eliminating the enemies which want to do that to you...which do you choose? Because, if given the chance, Hamas is going to kill each and every Jew in Israel if they can. We may think it's an easy decision, but when it's your or them, what do you choose? What should you choose? To die and have your entire people genocided instead...or to act and stop those who want to do that (after they've attacked multiple times, denied any treaty for peace because...they want to genocide you...so obviously peace is out of the question for them...and now have killed some of your family already again with the intent to kill all of you if possible) after they've started to attempt to do so? Saying, no it is not acceptable is an easy answer. But I'm not so sure it's always that simple. We, as a nation (US or UK), have obviously practiced that strategy to wipe an enemy out entirely, inclusive of those who are non-combatants in some wars in the past. It is easy to tell others that they shouldn't do so when we are in a position of safety and they are the ones who are threatened with Genocide (for the record, Israel is not threatening Genocide of the Palestinians or Hamas at this time, though HAMAS basically HAS declared a genocide on the Jews in Israel). The last time we actually were threatened with a genocide type act before the Cold War was probably certain areas during the Indian Wars (yes, there were tribes of Native Americans that when they waged war, it basically be to wipe out everyone of a certain tribe or group in an area), and we basically responded in kind at times (not always, but certain instances we went pretty barbaric). If we were threatened today, if 911 is any indication (which was not a genocide type attack, it was basically just an attack on US soil, at which point we made it a point to basically try to wipe out Al Quada and anyone we thought dealt with them) we would absolutely scream for genocide of the perpetrators if they wanted to genocide the US and proceeded to do an attack on the scale related to us to what happened in Israel (basically, take out the states of RI and Conn), at least if past behavior predicts what we would do. PS: I'm not saying it's the correct course of action, or necessarily the righteous course of action. I've just been thinking on what the proper response to someone who wants to genocide your own people is if you realize they will NEVER stop trying and someday if they get the power, they WILL do just that.