JohnsonJones
-
Posts
4343 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
12
Posts posted by JohnsonJones
-
-
I have this difficulty with my present calling. I try to bring treats for the youth for many activities, but I have one that is allergic to gluten. I want to be inclusive so finding treats that won't make him sick is a struggle.
100% apple juice seems to be okay (but that won't work for bread).
There are some fruit snacks that are gluten free.
There are cookies and other items which, if they are gluten free, note that they are gluten free on the package.
I look for that note on packages now that say they are gluten free, and then text to his parents to verify that they are okay for him to eat.
-
On 7/6/2025 at 10:17 PM, Hippophibia said:
The last talk and Sunday School session was a phone call late Saturday as assigned speaker or teacher became unavailable. Current Bishop is concerned i go too deep into doctrine.
Just recently all Bishops and branch president were issued a Directive to make sacrament meetings more flexible. So every week we have primary give a scripture, a youth testimony, occasional a youth sacrament meeting, like annual primary.
I have mostly been in small branches or wards, you can end up speaking monthly and doing both SS and PH lesson on same day.
Cutting a talk short is an advanced skill for most members.
Milk before meat. Know your audience.
I would probably agree with your Bishop. In many meetings, people are still drinking milk. If you feed them meat, they may choke on it and pass away.
When wanting to eat meat, it is probably best to find others who can also eat the meat and organize a group at other times to discuss such topics in more depth.
-
On 7/3/2025 at 4:20 PM, fiddle tenders said:
Is it possible to believe in the LDS teaching of becoming a god without compromising the biblical teaching that God’s glory cannot be added to?
As a former member of the LDS Church, I’ve come to realize how the doctrine of exaltation—becoming a god one day—shaped how I viewed my relationship with God.
I once believed that if I lived faithfully, I could be exalted: creating spirit children with my eternal companion and joining a hierarchy of divine beings. God would always remain supreme, and I would become a god under Him.
The LDS scripture in Doctrine and Covenants 132:19–20 states:
“[Then] shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting… they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things… then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.”
This led me to view my relationship with God as mutually beneficial—even transactional. He creates us and offers exaltation, and in return, His glory grows as more gods emerge to carry on His work.
“For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man (Moses 1:39).”
From this, I felt it was reasonable to conclude the following:
• God’s glory is tied to the success of His children.
• As more people are exalted (become gods), His glory increases.
• God is seen as a being who progresses in glory through the eternal increase of His offspring and the continuation of His work across “worlds without number (Moses 1:33).”
This left me needing to reconcile these LDS scriptures with a foundational biblical truth:
We can add nothing to God’s glory.
If God is truly perfect, self-sufficient, and lacking in nothing, how could my progression—my eventual godhood—possibly contribute to His glory?
Wouldn’t that suggest that God benefits from me in a way that contradicts the biblical picture of His nature?
I began to internalize the disconnect.
My takeaway was that LDS theology presents God’s glory as something that increases through our exaltation.
But biblical theology presents God as already glorious—eternally, completely, unchangeably so.
And yet He still chooses to love us, pursue us, and invite us into relationship, not because He needs us, but because He desires us.
This matters.
If God’s glory can increase through us, then our relationship with Him becomes something we must uphold or earn.
And if our exaltation benefits Him, we’re left carrying a heavy burden to perform—because then it’s not grace that drives the relationship, but our merit.
But God’s grace is not about obedience first. It’s about relationship first—a relationship that naturally leads to obedience through the power of His Spirit (John 15:5).
When we flip that order, we fall into a works-based mindset that God never intended for us to carry. We try to perform. We strive to prove. And we miss the very grace that was meant to free us.
That’s why I now believe that LDS exaltation theology is inherently works-based, even if the Church claims otherwise.
Over the years, I’ve heard LDS apologetics argue that it’s a faith-first system—but what a system claims and what it practically teaches can be two different things.
In reality, the LDS plan of salvation places a heavy emphasis on worthiness, temple work, covenants, and personal righteousness—all of which are seen as necessary for exaltation.
If we believe that anything we do increases God’s glory, then grace becomes something we must earn rather than receive.
The Bible makes it clear:
God doesn’t need anything from us. He created us not to profit from us, but to reflect His glory through relationship with Him.
He sacrificed His Son not to extract something from us, but to give something to us: eternal life, peace, and grace that transforms us from the inside out. His glory is complete, and His love is a gift—not a transaction.
Maybe I’m the only former LDS member who’s wrestled with this tension. But if you’ve felt it too, know that it’s worth exploring. Because once you see that God’s love is truly unearned, and His glory is not dependent on your performance, you’ll begin to rest in the freedom of grace—and experience the joy of simply being His.
I’m not sharing this from a place of judgment, but from personal experience. If no one else relates to these thoughts, that’s okay. I’m passionate about my faith in God and committed to sharing my journey—across all areas of life—in hopes of growing personally and connecting with others who might be facing similar struggles.
I want to be clear: I am not suggesting that Latter-day Saints are excluded from God’s grace. I know and love many individuals in the LDS Church who I believe have sincere, saving relationships with Jesus Christ and walk in His grace daily.
My intent here is not to question anyone’s personal faith or standing before God. What I’m addressing is a broader theological tension that I believe stems from the system and teachings of the institution—not from the hearts of individual members.
Our relationships with God the Father and Jesus Christ are deeply personal, and only God can truly judge the condition of our hearts and the reality of our salvation.
This is a flawed argument right from the beginning.
I have not read the rest of the topic, so it may have already been answered. I'm sorry if this type of misunderstanding drove you from the church.
This is a misunderstanding of what Glory means in our context.
The above feels as if Glory is some sort of worth, that God gains more worth from us being exalted, that the manifestation of his glory, or his worth, increases.
I would say it means something different. His Glory, as the world would understand it in that way, does not increase. It is already at it's maximum. His Glory (in that way) is so great that we cannot add to it. His worth is already omnipotence and omniscient in that manner.
Thus, logically, one would say, when we are talking about his glroy, we must be discussing something other than the worldly glory people in this mortal place are so fixated on.
Let's say that you are a Man. Do you become more Man when you get married or have children or have grandchildren. Are you more a Man than someone who isn't?
Does that entire line of logic seem rather foolish?
It is because we are looking at it in the wrong way.
Some would say the Glory of God is his works made manifest.
What are these works? If I build a house but no one sees it, does that mean it is not something I did? If they see a house I built, does that mean my works are greater than if no one saw the house?
Once again, this understanding of glory doesn't really do justice. The Glory is just as great no matter if man sees it or not.
Instead, let us associate Glory with works, as you may put it.
If I build more houses, are my works greater?
Some would say yes, but I can only live in one house at a time? What purpose does having multiple houses provide?
It makes it possible that I could have others live with me in those houses, but then...is that really my glory?
How about we combine that with the idea of glory being more akin to Joy.
Do you think that God loves us. Do you think that he is more joyful when we follow him, or when we do not follow him?
Let's follow that line on our Mortal Coil on this earth. It is a type and shadow of what things will be like in the hereafter.
For many, having children brings Joy. Having Grandchildren brings Joy. Watching them grow and become more successful brings us Joy.
Now, let's associate Glory, not really with just Joy, or Building, but as a Blessing.
Which is the greater blessing?
To have many houses, or to have many children that are healthy and successful?
What are the Blessings of the Lord, and what would he truly find Joy and Blessings in?
I think, that the great purpose is to have Joy, and that for God, part of having Joy is to have children. His creations bring Joy, and though he is full of glory, and his joy may be full, he can continue to have Joy in his posterity.
We can bring him joy, though some of our actions bring more joy than others. We are a manifestation of his works and power, and as we do good, we show that manifestation and bring Joy to him and the rest of his creation.
-
Some thoughts. Some of our terms are different in how we have been taught about them and what the standard definitions are. Sometimes's it's not clear. I would hazard a guess that our definitions of the words would be as follows.
Prophet - Someone who has seen and talked with the Lord and can tell others what the Lord has told them. Someone who has had truth shown to them by the Lord and tells others of this truth. (some say that we all, as members, can be prophets. Smaller...not THE Prophet, but prophets. If we have had the truth revealed to us by the Holy Ghost, and then we try to convert others by telling them what we have been told, we also are, in a way, also prophets).
Revelator - Someone who has had things revealed to them by the Lord. These could be things of the past, present or future.
Seer - They can also see hidden things, and/or see beyond the veil. (This also goes hand in hand with being a Translator, or being able to use things like the Urim and Thummim to see and understand that which cannot be seen or understood other ways).
One of these three (Seer...possibly) also has the ability to Seal. This is more than just seal as we do in the temple (what is sealed on earth is sealed in heaven), but in fact also includes the power to control the weather, the environment, mountains, etc. If they say to a mountain be moved, it will be moved. If they say to the heavens to withhold the rain, it is dry. If they call for rain, it rains.
If we go with the idea that the Seer is the highest of these, it would be sensible that this power also resides with being a Seer. This is done with the approval of the Lord in all instances, it cannot be done if the Lord does not grant such approval.
However, if one had the Power of God (hence is God, which is not our lot, but is only God's right) they would not need any approval, but could do it as they desire and/or at whim).
-
On 7/1/2025 at 3:13 PM, DurangoUT01 said:
If this is a priesthood curse, as you indicate, and it is commanded to be performed, per the versus that you list…why is the curse never executed by those holding the priesthood?
I'm not certain it is or isn't.
It is also possible that what happens varies depending on the situation and the Lord.
I think there are a few situations where the dusting of feet may have occurred in the Bible.
The first was dramatic and caused great destruction. I think that it is probable that the angelic messengers who saved Lot and his family dusted their feet as they left Sodom and Gomorrah. Those cities were utterly destroyed.
On the otherhand, Jonah possibly dusted his feet and then waited and watched to see if a similar thing occurred. However, the people in those cities repented and were spared.
-
1 hour ago, laronius said:
Jesus Christ has many names and titles so we don't actually know what the Nephites were calling Him. So you may be right that Joseph Smith used the name he was most familiar with. Also, it was the prophet Mormon who compiled the gold plated. He lived post Jesus' appearance so he may have simply used the name he was most familiar with.
Another thought, some of the information pertaining to Jesus' identity may have been hidden to prevent false Messiah's. Once the Nephites separated that was no longer an issue.
This is most likely what I would back.
Joseph Smith fell back onto what he was familiar with during the translation in many instances. It most likely is not a word for word translation, but one that also was done in accordance with what Joseph was familiar with.
This happens with some translations today as well, especially in texts where it is more poetic. There is a choice in these texts on whether to go with a word by word translation, which will be a literal translation of what the document actually says, or go with a more substantial translation which confers what the document actually means.
For example, if we had a phrase in the United States in English that says...Go break a leg...or...beating a dead horse...and translated it to another language people may be confused why we were wishing someone who was about to do something big to go break a leg, or why people who were rehashing old arguments were beating a dead horse instead of talking.
Poetic texts are even tougher than that to confer what the author actually means. In addition, there is the question on whether to try to keep the poetry of the writing, or whether to go more towards what is a standard language. Take Virgil's Aeneid. In it, you have all these choices regarding translation. If you go for a pure translation a lot of the symbolism and other areas of the work could be lost. If you go only for one that tries to stay as true to the words, but also convey the feelings and experiences of it, you may lose some of the actual wording utilized, and may not convey the feeling of the poetic verse (dactylic hexameter). If you try to go and convey the feeling of the poetry in motion by replicating the meter of the poetry, you may lose both some of the actual meaning while not staying true to the words.
It is a tricky thing translating many of the ancient works.
At times, it is left to the translator's best understanding of the matter. Some times they already have exposure to a particular type of translation of the work (for example, many translators of the Aeneid choose to go for a more literal word on word that remains close to the actual meter of the epic poem, but that means that the casual reader will miss quite a bit of some of why things are done or the symbology and meaning of some of the work). It is what they are familiar with and so they go with that tried and true form of translation.
Joseph Smith did not have the exposure to a lot of various translations of the Bible during his time period (or at least most likely did not, and/or utilized one version of the bible for most of his actual reading and studying). Hence, just like other translators he probably fell back on that familiarity during his translations. This is why much of the Book of Mormon, especially when it repeats a portion found in the Bible, replicates those portions of the Bible. It was what he was familiar with.
The same could go for certain terms in the Book of Mormon. He was familiar with the name of the Lord in the New Testament and when a descriptor of that name came up during translation, he fell back on what he was familiar with. So, the actual term could have been another term or word, but as Joseph was more familiar with the term Christ (which one could view as an actual title rather than a name, Joseph and Mary did not have that as a last name, or at least most Scholars agree they didn't), when a term meaning the anointed one popped up, that's the term he utilized.
- SilentOne and Just_A_Guy
-
2
-
On 6/26/2025 at 12:20 PM, Carborendum said:
Again, weirdness is going on with Canada. And I'm getting mixed messages. Does anyone really know what is going on?
The last I heard:
- Canada made a deal with Greenland before Trump did.
- Canada decided to restrict our road to Alaska.
- Alberta is still kinda hanging in limbo.
Is any of this true? Any confirmations? I'm hearing a lot, but not able to verify much.
Only thing I have read was during my glance at the news today.
It seems Trump ended trade talks with Canada. With the TACO acronym, I expect something will happen next week and they'll be back on or resolved or something.
(supposedly it's become such a pattern that it's the best way to make money on Wall Street currently, because any other prediction or method seems to crash and burn with the unpredictability).
-
8 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:
Well, if we're trying to turn the subjective world of should into the real world, I think AOC should have stuck with her original summary of the Green New Deal.
People shouldn't have to work at all.
Get on that, wouldja @Phoenix_person?
I think the bigger point, is that any Conservative should want a smaller government and less Welfare going out. Why are my tax dollars paying their full time employees to work at Walmart?
As I mentioned above, if Walmart want's to subsidize their workforce that way, have them pay our government to reimburse us (the taxpayer). I propose that they pay us 10X the amount we subsidize any of their full time employees. Any welfare or food stamps or anything else that a full time employee (note, full time means that this should be the only job the employee needs to do) has to use or qualifies for and uses, will need to be paid back to us 10 fold.
Stop using taxpayer money to subsidize their own workers.
This would reduce our Welfare monies we spend, reduce the social programs needed, or bring in more money for us to use on other things in the government.
-
7 hours ago, Carborendum said:
Ah. I see. You don't know how the money is divided up.
- The chairman of Walmart makes a bit over $500k/yr
- The other 11 executives make slightly less. But to be conservative, let's say they all make $500k/yr
- Total = $6Million/yr
- Divide that up between the 2.1 million employees = About $3/year.
Yeah, that will make a HUGE difference in the average employee salary.
Every walmart employee is given corporate stock as part of their salary. This means that they also get the dividends from that stock. The longer they work there, the more stock they get, the more money they make.
What you call "corporate welfare" may actually earn that title. And we're against it just as much as you.
But as long as it is a free will exchange and all is above board for something the appropriate process of government has determined is needed, this is no different than you going shopping for your groceries. That's how infrastructure is built. That's how our military gets armed.
Do you feel like you're participating in corporate welfare when you go shopping?
I can't speak for @Phoenix_person, but that's not what a lot of people think when they are talking about Corporate Welfare.
The biggest one I can think of, which was probably the worst that we've seen in the past few years were the Loans to keep Banks from going under during the early part of this century (21st century) when we started the "Great Recession" as many call it.
Was it necessary to prevent us from possibly going into a depression...probably.
On the otherhand, we probably should have let all those companies and businesses go under. Nothing should be "Too Big to Fail" in that way. It would have hurt a Lot more initially, but I think in the long term we would have had better capitalism and a stronger economic future (probably cheaper housing for our children and grandchildren, many who now are wondering if they will ever even be able to afford a house, more competitors in the banking arena and car market, as well as more securities that came about due to capitalism rather than government intrusion in regards to loans and banking options, etc) overall.
If we want to talk about Walmart specifically, it isn't the CEO payments that are causing the corporate Welfare, it's literally giving the Company Welfare from the government Coffers For Welfare. What I mean by that, is that Walmart underpays it's employees (especially in rural areas where it is a big employer and driven mom and pop shops out of business). They do not pay a living wage. Thus, though the employees are working full time in those areas, they also qualify for food stamps, housing assistance, and welfare in general.
AS one for smaller government and less money spent, I actually am sort of outraged by this. My proposal (which will never occur due to how massive corporatism is in the US, with Walmart being very much involved with government policies) would be to charge the companies. If they have an employee that uses food stamps, welfare, or other social programs to aid the poor, WE CHARGE THEM 10x the amount we spent on their employee.
We, as taxpayers, don't need to be paying Walmart for their own company. Let them pay their employees to work, not us. This type of change would either force them to pay employees enough so that my tax dollars are not supporting them, OR...bring in more money to our coffers (who knows, with that amount, maybe we could even pay off the US debt...though I highly doubt even Walmart could afford that).
Corporate Welfare means that we are literally paying that companies employees to live from our tax monies, rather than the company actually supporting itself without using our tax dollars.
This has nothing to do with some CEO and the Board's pay, and everything to do with lowering government costs by doing away with a Welfare state which these companies promote in order to make a bigger buck by using the Taxpayer's money to supplement their worker's incomes.
-
14 hours ago, Carborendum said:
Yes, it has... during this administration. And one of the reasons why is that we're cutting away at socialism.
Yes, that is a public good. So, not necessarily socialism. And there are some privately run fire departments that do a better job by focusing on prevention rather than remedy.
This is the quintessential example of a public good right behind military and police. So, again, not really socialism. And yet again, private versions do a better job.
Lol. Not the best argument to get a conservative to consider socialism as a good thing.
Are you joking? You're calling the post office a good example of a socialist program?
Once upon a time it was necessary because there was no practical alternative. But now??? I believe we've had this discussion already.
Disagree. If it were run as a watchdog (basically being the "police" of how food is made) maybe. But it has gone FAARRR beyond that.
Ever heard of the 2001 Roadless Rule? They recently rescinded it because the greenies that imposed it didn't realize that we need roads in forests to provide services such as controlled burning, debris removal, manage wildlife, etc. And it causes the ecosystem to die.
And then there is the recent chicken epidemic. I think that was the USDA wasn't it? I could be mistaken. It may be another govt. department.
I don't think any educated capitalist would argue that private enterprise is immune to corruption. But the self-correcting mechanisms either keep it down to a minimum, OR cause the enterprise to fail. And when it fails, there are alternatives that come to pick up the pieces and offer new jobs to those ground-level workers who are out of work.
Government has no such mechanisms or alternatives. While I'm sure you think DOGE was an evil group, it really did get rid of a LOT of corruption (incl. waste fraud and abuse) in government.
It's not really clear what you're arguing here. From what I gather, people who are gainfully employed are able to get money from the government that is usually reserved for people who can't work or can't find work. But I get the feeling you're saying something else?? What I get out of the comment is that the government offers a very public and very easy way to fleece our tax dollars.
Again, I'm not sure that this is a winning argument for you. You're talking about how government spends money. By definition this exchange is a socialist endeavor.
Every venture in new developments/technologies requires trial and error. That's in any venture into the NEW and ORIGINAL. The fact that his end product is so much better that he can perform better at a lower cost should say that this is a GOOD thing. But for some reason you think this is a failure of capitalism?
I think you are confused about what socialism is and how it can be both socialism and a public good.
Fire Departments, Roads, and even police departments are all socialism and run via socialistic policies.
All socialism is, is a system where something is owned or run by the people or the state, or owned collectively and run by the state (aka...government...aka...why the Fire Department and Police are almost always also part of the County or City government organizations in the area...OR...run by a group of citizens in the area itself).
If a Road is owned by the government, paved by the government, and paid for by your taxes...it is...by definition...being made available via socialism.
I'm not sure why you think a Public Good cannot possibly be from socialism, when in fact...a LOT of public goods as you may put it, are directly from socialistic policies in the United States.
Of course, the most socialistic program in the United States is none other than the US military (which is ironic, considering how right wing it is).
As a sort of flawed notion (as @Phoenix_person could easily point out, but for the purposes of the discussion it is interesting to point this out)....
That also points out an obvious problem that conservatives could utilize if they truly wanted to point out the problems with Socialism. One of the biggest expenses in the United States is it's military. The military is completely socialistic in most ways, from the way they provide housing and clothing, to how they provide food and even medical care. Everything is given to them by the state (or via an allowance), so all they need to focus on is the job of defending the nation in which ever capacity they have been appointed. The military composes less than 10% of the population, but consumes much more of the Budget than that. There is no way to extend this type of socialism to the rest of the US without bankrupting it.
Of course, pointing out how socialist our own military is, while saying they support that same military and how it operates, is sort of an ironic twist regarding how one would say they are opposed to socialism, but at the same time supporting the greatest pillar of socialism in our nation.
-
2 minutes ago, Traveler said:
What many do not understand is how authoritarian systems breed corruption. True capitalism requires competition, but corruption always bleeds off the top of the economic resources destroying competitiveness.
As odd as it may seem, capitalism, though seemingly less efficient, always produces competition which makes everything in an economy incentivized. Without incentive nothing will happen. The only reason water flows downhill is because it is incentivized to do so by gravity.
The problem with capitalism is the unfit to contribute to the economic benefits in society. This is the only argument of all other economic systems over capitalism. What is left out and forgotten is the religious notion of charity and compassion. Forced charity and compassion is not charity nor compassion and is driven more by elitism than any actual caring. The hard-core reality is what the Book of Mormon always teaches – nothing prospers without the notion of a charitable G-d that rewards in eternity those that lovingly care for the indigent that cannot care for themselves.
The Traveler
The problem in the United States is not so much Capitalism, but Corporatism and Monopolism rather than Capitalism. Unfortunately, in many instances, Capitalism evolves into Corporatism and Monopolism as the "Survival of the Fittest" edges away the smaller companies, companies merge and giant corporations that have far more power than any other business emerge.
When we have companies that engulf such a large amount of sales such as Amazon and Walmart in comparison to other companies, such as Mom and Pop shops, the ability those corporations have to affect government and the economy far outscales anything that normal Capitalism can compete with.
In order to have a real capitalistic society, social controls over how large corporations, companies, and co-ops can get must be written and legally enforced.
The problem we have had is that these laws have been slowly eroded over the past half century, where as at the same time a great reluctance to enforce anti-monopoly laws have crippled our government in regards to stopping such corporatism from taking place.
Part of this is that we see benefits of having large companies control large swathes of our economy in relation to others (an China took note and has attempted a very similar thing, which we can see it's impact on us today).
An example...
Microsoft, though we took a soft punch at it over two decades ago, never really got broken as a Monopoly. As a result, though other systems are utlized, on the desktop environment, over 75% of the computers worldwide (this does not include phones or tablets, just the desktop and PC environments which we use in such places as schools, offices, etc) still dominate the OS. Thus, ideas such as forced updates, forced creation of accounts, and other things just to unlock our computers to use for the first time are the norm, because all those things are on Windows. Linux, Unix, and other OS's, despite having better ways to do things in these areas are largely not utilized due to Windows dominance. In essence, the competition is not ideal. There is no real capitalism in this environment.
Some would say it is a good thing, as we have more universal usage and commonality. It has allowed the United States to control the computer environment (and now along with Apple, even greater control with the phones and tablets) of the world. However, in regards to capitalism, Capitalism is dead in this arena, and has been for decades. If it were alive and well, the US may not have the control it does over these environments throughout the world.
If we want Capitalism, than we have to enable capitalism to exist, rather than allowing companies to have basic monopolies in certain areas. Many do not see the advantages of it in relation to where we stand today in regards to the Corporatism that has engulfed this nation.
Much of the problems people try to point out regarding Capitalism in the United States is not so much a result of Capitalism itself, but Corporatism and Monopolism in regards to their impact on our Government and Economy.
-
2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:
Meanwhile, Zohran Mamdani just won the New York primary seat away from Cuomo. Dude's policies include initiatives like raising the minimum wage to $30 an hour, creating city-owned grocery stores, bringing back rent control, and paying for it all with increased taxes on wealthy residents and corporations.
Wanna bet eighty qwubbrillion dollars that if he wins and implements all that jargle, every single one of them will end up epic massive failures?
I think he has an uphill battle. He's going to have an independent (who has been a democrat) probably running against him and that is going to decrease a lot of his votes.
Cuomo at least probably won't run as well (if he did, I think that would almost guarantee Zhoran would not win).
I don't think his policies (the ones you listed) would fail if he actually was able to bring them about. New York is a very expensive place to live already, and a minimum wage of $30 is probably equal to a minimum wage of $10 to $15 in the rest of the US.
City-Owned Grocery stores probably won't be as successful, but I imagine there would be a few small grocery stores in food deserts that would lose money continually, but actually remain.
Rent controls are probably heavily needed. Let the rest of the nation catch up before the rents go crazy again.
There's too much valuable land, buildings, and the ports in NYC, the wealthy will always be there, or at least will remain until the proposals cost a LOT more than what the mayoral candidate is proposing thus far.
I think he may run into problems with the Jewish population and the Sunni population with some of his current views and statements. I have no idea if he will win this or not, I think it depends on whether a certain independent candidate (edit just in case no one knows who I am inferring about: Eric Adams) continues to run or not, and how successful that candidate is in drawing votes for himself and away from the Democrats.
-
10 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:
Off Topic: I'd love to get a bigger image of your histomap quoted above. I opened it in it's own tab but still couldn't get it big enough to read it. Getting old, eyes can't read things that small. It looks very interesting though and I'd love to have one that I could really see really easily and read over.
-
On 6/24/2025 at 5:57 AM, Carborendum said:
Reports now (take them for what they are worth) say:
- Iran's stockpile of uranium was enriched to 60%. Not enough to do a full-blown bomb. But obviously beyond "energy-producing" levels.
- Iran was apparently moving the uranium via trucks, prior to the bombing.
- The centrifuges were destroyed or made unuseable. While some may be reparable, it is still a significant cost to Iran. However, we are aware that they had others at other facilities. We don't know where.
- Saudi Arabia is clear that they consider Iran a bad actor. Apparently, there is no love lost between them.
Iran and Saudi Arabia have had a far more hostile cold war between them than the US and the USSR did in the late 20th century (though earlier in the century it probably was hotter between the US and the USSR).
They absolutely hate each other. Some of it is over religious disagreements. It has benefited the US greatly (Saudi Arabia is one of the US's oldest allies, and lean greatly on the US for support, much of it due to wanting and needing weapons and defense in regards to this cold war).
- LDSGator and NeuroTypical
-
2
-
On 6/23/2025 at 6:58 PM, NeuroTypical said:
Here’s a way to check your social media literacy.
https://x.com/grok/status/1937032971007258625?s=46
Questions:
- Who is suggesting that the church’s real estate holdings be seized, and what’s his general deal?
- Were you able to find the article and read it?
- How did Grok AI get involved, and what did it have to say about the issue?
Scoring system: 3+points: boo-yah! 2 points: boo-nah. 1-0 points, better ask your grandkid for help. (wondering how points are assigned: -1 point.)
I'm the slow one in this thread. I don't think I understand the question.
I went to the link and it just appeared to be a post about holdings and then talking about the church's holdings. I didn't find a quiz. I'm not even sure why it matters in their context.
I don't get it. I suppose that means my social media literacy score is...extremely low??
-
On 6/9/2025 at 5:43 AM, Carborendum said:
That doesn't explain how all the descendants of Joseph (Ephraimites and Menassehites) could hold the priesthood when they were also descended from Pharoah.
So, the history of the bible, and the history we hear in religions and churches do not always match what we read in history itself.
History during that time period in Egypt is probably the Middle Era and a Golden Era for Egypt. It was also a different dynasty than the original Pharaohs of Egypt. In that light, historically speaking, the Pharaoh may or may not have been directly related to the original Pharaoh (some would say it definitely had connections, others would say it would have been impossible for there to be a connection between them...genetically speaking. It depends on the historian and the slant they are taking. Some of the opinions are more popular than others).
Obviously we have problems if there is a direct line between the two, but if there is no connection between them (and we are talking hundreds of years and more...historically speaking rather than religiously speaking as the start of the Egyptian rulers and those of the Middle Kingdom would be quite vast)
-
19 hours ago, mikbone said:
To be clear and upfront, I support this action.
I feel this is not something that Trump wanted to do. In fact, I think he didn't want to do it. He did it because it had to be done.
He probably knew it would be unpopular. He probably knew polls, even from his own party, would show many who were against this act.
But if he did this, I think the alternative was Iran with Nuclear weapons.
I think they may have been close, and at this point, there was really no alternative. It was do it now, or Iran has a nuclear weapon. (and I'd be happy if someone proves me wrong, but the impression I get was that the reason Isreal took the actions it did, and what convinced Trump to do what he did was how very close they were to obtaining such a weapon).
An Iran with a Nuclear Weapon is bad.
They have declared death to Israel. They have declared death to the USA. They are one of the biggest backers and formentors of world wide terrorism today. I do not think it takes a great deal of imagination to think of what they may have done if they got nuclear weapons, and the damage they may attempt to do at US targets with such things.
Acting offensively to kill others is not Christian, but we also know in the Book of Mormon that we can defend ourselves. Iran declared the US it's enemy decades ago. They have made no secret of things they have done to try to cause us harm. Acting to defend the US from such an enemy that would probably use such Weapons of Mass Destruction to seriously hurt us, I hope falls in line with self defensive actions to defend our nation, our lives, and our way of being.
You all know I am not a fan of Trump (at all). However, I think this is one action I fully think he made the right call on. I don't think it's going to be popular (from what I've been reading in the news), but sometimes hard choices have to be made and this was one of them. No one wins with a Nuclear Armed Iran (even Iran loses, though they may not understand why).
I know he says that it's a great success, but I think it's too early to tell currently. I only hope that we succeeded as well as Trump has stated (if not more so) after we finally can get the analysis of what damage we actually did or did not accomplish.
-
On 5/30/2025 at 7:23 AM, Carborendum said:
I've got a question that will take us on a tangent. I'm getting to the point where I wonder when/if I will retire. What were the factors that contributed to your decision to retire?
I have finances planned where I can "get by" when I turn 60 or so. To do more than "get by" I'll be waiting until 65. But I'm still very healthy and energetic at my age. At my current rate, I'll still be able and willing to work professionally until I'm 75 or older. And in my current specialty, a lot of people work until their early 80s.
With being LDS and Asian, I get a double whammy which would make my life expectancy pretty high. And that is further lengthened by the fact that I have aged more slowly than my biological sister. She's only a year or two older than I am. But she looks her age. People still guess that I'm 10 years younger than I am.
So, I'm hoping to live until I'm 98.
Sorry for the late reply.
I could have retired years ago, but I was reluctant to. It meant that I would have to monitor my money far more tightly and I also enjoyed being able to do what I was doing at that time. I had already worked a great deal with another career, and this opportunity to teach and research sort of leaped out at me. I took it and enjoyed it greatly.
However, various factors combined to finally make me take the jump and go off the cliff to retirement.
#1 - Politics. Not the politics that we think about, but university politics. I was responsible at times for getting grants and contracts and overlooking grants and contracts. There were several factors that were making them much harder to obtain or to feasibly consider. It was getting to be a chore and really making my life a rather unfun experience at times.
#2 - My health. Healthwise I am not doing so great these days. As I get older, my health just doesn't want to keep up. It also appears that I may have gotten some dementia (and I do not know how long that means I'll be able to remain as I am, or if it will get worse and eventually I'll not be able to do things. I do not want to be a burden on my family, but if it gets worse...then we will be there). In addition some other health concerns have popped up that could get worse relatively quickly. It's estimated I may have only 1 to 3 years left. If I only have so much time, I want to spend it doing what I want to do. I may get a miracle, but I've lived my life and if I don't, I'll be happy with where I'm at. I'm trying to convince a son or in-law to at least sign onto these forums so when I am no longer able to visit, they at least can keep people updated.
#3 - It just feels like it's time. The world and the students are changing, and sometimes I just feel like a fish out of water. I think I'm ready to be done with this stage of my life.
On the bright side, I am retired now. I've gone traveling (and really crazy thing happened in Utah while I was there. They actually closed the entire Federal Highway Last weekend! I've never seen another state completely close the highway down without any real reason (Beyond construction). Normally they find a way to at least keep one side open. I've gone to Disney World with some grandkids (we went to all 4 parks. It's different when you are older. I think I prefer Animal Kingdom these days to the other parks, though the grandkids probably enjoyed the other ones better). I went throughout the Western States and I've visited several of the National Parks out there.
On the downside, I've found I am going to have to cut back as much as I can on spending. Finances will be tighter and I'm still adjusting. I am fortunate to have a buffer, but I still need to ensure that I stop overspending and take time to focus more on the spending necessities and less on what I would like (for example, my summerly trips overseas...done [though that was usually for research trips rather than pure enjoyment]. My thoughts on touring Europe...currently it seems like it may be a little too expensive for my retirement budgets). Bills and Budgets are tighter now and I'm feeling it. Maybe more car trip traveling around the US during the summer than going internationally, and more time with family than experiencing sights and culture.
- Just_A_Guy, NeuroTypical, Carborendum and 1 other
-
1
-
1
-
2
-
Well, for now I've cut down on a bunch of meetings. Retired and sitting around now. I think I'll go on vacation (but is it really vacation if you are retired, or just travelling?) in June.
I had one college who said I shouldn't retire, that those who retire are dead in 6 months. I hope not. I still have kids and grandkids to go visit.
Still will have meetings for church, so I suppose I'll still have a few meetings to go to. Otherwise, I don't know if I'll have to worry about another work meeting for a while (though if some people's stories of their after death experiences are true, if I pass away I may have a lot more meetings all of a sudden in the near future).
-
22 hours ago, mirkwood said:
Yep, you just want to argue.
As I said above, if you wanted to clarify/change/correct what you meant (meaning anecdotal) feel free.
Then I said your anecdotal statements had equal footing.
Then you wanted to continue to argue.
:shrug:
Have a better day @JohnsonJones.
????
You are a confusing one...
But, that said...
You have a great day as well and hope that things go well for you.
-
9 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:
Google Veo3 is currently in some sort of early release mode, with folks getting their copy by documenting what they'll do with it - and "content creator" is one of the professions. So, guessing at motivations, I'd guess that whoever made these videos is a fan of the tech and wanted to generate lots of likes and subscribes to their channel by making click-and-share-worthy videos. A good way to do that is with a bit of shock value.
Yeah? I mean, it also might have been a random marketing effort from the Veo3 people, trying to go viral and generate interest, or it might have just been a random user. Either way, it's now insanely easy to make such things.
Not sure if this is behind a paywall or not, but here you go: https://www.wsj.com/video/series/joanna-stern-personal-technology/we-made-this-film-with-ai-its-wild-and-slightly-terrifying/D17B233B-1E06-400D-9095-B5247306DD38?mod=article_inline
I was able to view it without paying the WSJ. Not sure if it's due to this being my old work computer or not (it allows me access to certain sites and such), but I was able to view it. Interesting video.
-
9 hours ago, mirkwood said:
It's also like @JohnsonJones is looking for a fight on this topic. Ok, I wasn't but I guess we could.
Your anecdotal references are on equal ground with mine. You are the one who appears to take exception to this. Again that is an @JohnsonJones problem, not a mirkwood problem.
So what is your real issue? Frankly I am bewildered by your being upset by this sharing of experiences.
That's exactly what I said. In the very first post.
If you are going to relate your anecdotal situation, I'll relate mine. That is, if we are going to relate anecdotal examples.
For some reason, you then tried to demand that I my anecdotes must be facts or something strange like that.
Which, I was kind of confused about, but shrugged and said...well...if that's what you want...I'm game. Not sure what you are aiming for, but sure...why not.
My purpose was not to argue or fight, but see where you were wanting to go with this. Your complaint didn't make a lot of sense to me, but I wasn't upset about it, but kind of confused and curious where you were going with this and where you wanted to go with it.
However, if it was going to go into the area where you were trying to back up your anecdotal experiences with fact (which I suppose you may have been wanting to do as you demanded me to back mine up with facts, AND, as my experiences were different than yours, perhaps you were wanting to prove that my experiences were less like what actually is reflected by the statistics and numbers than yours were) I didn't want to have to put up with a bunch of conspiracy information and fake information sites (such as I mentioned before...flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, etc).
I wanted to be clear and up front that I am open to your opinion (whatever it was...as I said, I wasn't quite sure where you were wanting to go with this), but if you were going to go that route, please try to do things that would convince me rather than things that would do the opposite. (I'm open to valid discussion and debate, and open to being convinced, but if you are aiming to convince me of something, use resources that I consider useful rather than those I do not. I was trying to point you in that direction so that if you had valid points, you might be able to convince me of your viewpoints).
In that light, I thought giving a few examples of what I would look for could guide you in the right direction.
In that light, I actually started posting information on the lead causes of death as examples of what we are looking for in regards to facts.
If we want FACTS, we can post FACTS.
However, if we are going by anecdotal information, then demanding someone back up their anecdotes with facts for no apparent reason while you don't do the same is kind of...well...odd. Not offensive, but it didn't give me any idea of what you were actually wanting or after.
9 hours ago, zil2 said:"If we are going by anecdotal information, 100% of the people my age who died from Covid were NOT Vaxxed."
This is the almost the exact same Phrase I used, except you separated two sentences with a comma (which is a common item to do with two sentences) and reversed their order. Otherwise, it's almost exactly the same thing I stated to begin with.
However, as I admitted, what read as crystal clear to me, did not read crystal clear to others.
-
12 hours ago, Carborendum said:
AI is becoming more and more prevalent. More people are using it. Search engines are now largely run by AI. We've already become dependent on them. Recently, we had someone return to this board who depended on AI to question the sanity of a Prophet. We've come to trust it. Essentially, we've come to have faith in it.
I know. Not everyone. I'm hyperbolizing.
I am not really a big fan of AI.
I'm glad I don't have to deal with it academically anymore (I am now...officially retired...finally).
I didn't have to worry about it as much because my testing tended to be old school (you go to the testing center, they give you a blue book, you write your mid-term and final in the blue book) for under graduates, and the graduate students are held to a higher standard than what you will get out of AI (I think).
I know some professors have had great difficulties with it. Personally, if it was something that they could use AI for in my classes, I think due to requiring sources and references, they would need to do just as much work to do prompts and other inputs to get an accurate report as they would if they just did it themselves without the AI, that they would learn what was needed either way.
But AI is getting more complex and more advanced and I don't know if that would continue to work in the future. Some already felt that it had surpassed what we could monitor already during my last year or two at the university.
It opens many ways for students to cheat, and that obviously is not what the Lord would probably want.
I personally dislike a LOT of the AI we are seeing today. I want to turn it off of Google half the time I'm doing a search now as I would prefer the actual sources than a summation.
I don't want it in my PC (but I have no idea how to turn this copilot thing off), and don't want it on my phone. It seems they want to put it everywhere, whether we want it or not.
I can see that many kids these days will probably only read the first thing on Google (which is the AI summary) and accept that rather than do further research. With that type of mindset, with AI ideas or items getting more prevalent in every electronic device in our lives, I can see how these future adults and leaders could be easily duped into believing things without trying to look further than whatever the AI tells them to.
In that instance, I could see how important being led by the spirit may be in the future. I don't know if this was the exact thing President Nelson was warning about (it could be part of it along with many other things) but I can definitely see how it could be.
-
9 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:
I show them examples of how good the lies are becoming, so they understand how important it is to vet things before you accept them. Behold - any 12 year old can now create videos like this by just entering a prompt into Veo3:
What did I just watch????
Why would people use AI to make something like this? I had some kids watching behind me and they found it hilarious. I made sure to tell them that the entire video was fake, but they already knew this apparently.
What a strange video.
How do I pay for a Missionary?
in 'How do I' Questions Forum
Posted · Edited by JohnsonJones
This does not seem to be a highly active forum, but hopefully it has enough eyes to answer my question.
My grandson is going on a mission. I have offered to pay for it. I was told it is easiest if I do it online via my church account.
I go to the donations portion, and I have a drop down menu for missionaries. However, this seems to be our ward missionaries, and he is not in our ward. How do I select him to pay for his missionary costs?
Edit: I thought I should add, this online thing is somewhat new for me on this. What else should I expect in doing this. Step by Step instructions, or otherwise could be useful as I try to get this done. He leaves in a week, so I should probably get the payment in soon.