JohnsonJones

I have been thinking on some very similar items recently. I've come to some conclusions. Justice is not fair. Justice is not necessarily good. It's not bad, but it's not good either. Justice can be incredibly unfair. Justice can be incredibly inequal. When people talk about justice, many do not mean that. They do not want justice, they want equality or they want something to be fair. However, there's nothing fair about justice in our lives, or at least sometimes justice is invariably unfair. This is why we MUST have mercy, because without mercy, life would not be fair. Some would have far better chances then others in receiving rewards. A prime example. A man is starving and his children are starving. He has no job because he was fired for no reason. He is willing to work, but no work is to be had. He goes to the grocer even though he has no funds. He steals 1,000 dollars worth of food. He gives it to his children. He then is arrested. He is charged. His children starve to death. He goes to prison for committing a felony. Another man works at the store. He is a manager. He dislikes the man mentioned above. The man above is the hardest worker in the store, but because he is disliked by the manager, he is fired. The manager then decides he wants to steal 1000 dollars from the store. He gets arrested and charged. His father is rich and has connections. With the best lawyer, and tweaking those connections, he gets off with a minimum sentence and fine. The both committed a felony. They both did the crime. Even with equal justice, both should serve a jail time and pay a fine. There are those in society that would say that this is not fair. I would be one that would agree it is not fair. How is it fair that children should die because their father was fired for no reason by a petty man? However, Justice is blind, or should be. Society operates because Justice is applied in this way. It doesn't matter whether you are rich or poor, powerful or not, Justice will be served. In this life we have those born into comfort and wealth. They have every blessing one could desire. They have the blessings of the gospel. Others are born into the most severe poverty. They are tormented by the horrors of this world at every turn. They never receive the gospel. That one goes to the Celestial Kingdom and one does not if they both do not sin, is justice. However, many would say that is not even close to being remotely fair. It's not fair because the situations are not equal. This is why we must have mercy. This is why there needs to be mercy, because this world is inherently unfair, and justice without mercy can be a very unfair thing.

Faith can also be seen as believing something that is true. In that same light, if something has not occurred, but you believe it will, and it will occur as you think it will, and then you act upon that belief, then this is faith. A prime example. Your arm is on a desk relaxing. You believe that you can lift your arm up. It has not happened yet, but you have enough experience and reliably feel that you can lift your arm if you wish to. You then lift your arm. You have practiced your faith. You may do this without even thinking about it, and yet, if it has not happened, but you basically know it will, it is still faith, as it is something you believe will happen that has not actually occurred. In this same manner, the Lord can act in faith to make worlds and to enact various ideas that he fashions via his power and authority.

I've found the exact opposite. There are many people willing to do things, but only certain people are asked to do things. Or...the same 10 people are always put in leadership positions and asked to do things and everyone else is always ignored. I constantly have callings and asked to do things, but I have friends who never get asked and don't even have callings! They get to sit back in their old age...but not I! I think one problem that we see is that we don't ask people enough to be able to do things. People are more than willing, if only they were asked to do so. It's amazing how many show up to clean the ward house if you personally call them the week they can help out. But when you don't personalize it, you get the same 5 people every week. I find it horrible how we have the same person called to be a Elder's quorum president, the Bishop or Bishopric, High counsel, and Stake leadership. There are people that were in my ward that were worthy that never were called to such positions. Sometimes they were far more worthy than some of those I have known in leadership positions (I've known some pretty bad thieves in the Stake Presidencies and High Counsels, some rather dishonest individuals among those groups, and have horror stories that ensue due to that)! I feel the Church would be a more just and fair place if we gave everyone equal opportunities to attain the same blessings of high callings as each other. Instead, sometimes it turns into a nepo party (nepotism) or just a plain party of who's popular and who's not, and that's unfortunate. I would gladly enable some of the older brethren who have always been Elders (and no reason they should not have ever been a High Priest, some of them are the best people I know!) to be given the opportunities that they have been denied. However, I surely and truly hope that the Lord is right and honest when he says the first shall be last and the last shall be first, and it applies to heaven. I would imagine there will be some pretty high and lofty leaders that are the last in heaven, and some of those who were never given these blessings and opportunities in this life that will be first in heaven. I, myself, know that I am not close to being as righteous as some of these members who have been denied these blessings in this life. I strive to be better, but I am still far too worldly to compare to many of them.

While not all are able to serve a mission, missions are much more open and available for those who wish to serve today. Back in your time it was probably proselyting missions that were being pushed. This is not the type of mission that is well suited for every type of individual. These days, service missions are also a type of mission that one can serve and still get the "name tag" to wear proudly...if one wants to put it that way. Service missions can be tailored in various ways to enable the individual, no matter the disability, to be able to serve the Lord honorably. Due to these types of changes, almost anyone who wants or wishes to serve a mission and is worthy, can serve a mission in the capacity that they are able to do so. A Mission is a choice, and whether one serves a mission or not will not reflect on whether they go to the Celestial Kingdom or not. It does not determine what type of member they turn out to be in later years, or how faithful they will be to the gospel or the church after the missionary age. There are many who serve missions who fall away from the church, and many who do not serve missions who are faithful and strong members. --------------------------------------------------------------- However, it will not stop people from using it as a measure to weigh one's background. A mission can be a helpful predictor of what an individual was or is in their behaviour and attitudes. I have a grand daughter who was dating a young man. I found out that he did not go on a mission and I questioned her about it. She was very hesitant to tell me anything about him. I told her that from what I could see, very few reasons would disallow a young man from serving in his condition. It made me suspect about what type of quality of young man he was. Many times when one chose not to serve a mission it indicated that they were either... Inactive Had some sort of medical difficulty or problem Lacked a testimony Other problems which were serious, but didn't fall in the above Or...and through no fault of their own, simply could not acquire the funds to serve. Turns out that my feelings were correct. He didn't serve a mission because he got a girl pregnant and then got married to her. Later, when she had a major health difficulty, he divorced her. My grand daughter spent a good two years wasting her time with this fellow. At the time he just wasn't a committed individual. I wish she would have simply dumped him and moved on to better individuals in the dating field. This is not a condemnation of those that did not serve missions, but many members have seen the effects from some of those that did not serve missions. Having been burned by these types of individuals at times, they feel it better to avoid being burned again, even if it is only an illusion of fire rather than actually being a fire. It isn't that those who did not serve missions are bad people, but there are those among them who are and have done enough to spread that stigma about it. It's like that idea where you may see a bunch of people, and most of them are good, but sometimes there is that one individual that is bad that sours everyone to the rest of them. Today, with how much easier it is for young men to serve missions, questions arise even more when a young man chooses not to. Not serving a mission has become to vogue inside the church. I have over 20 grandchildren. I've only had one grandson that has served a mission thus far. One. It's not that the others cannot serve missions, they chose not to. ---------------------------------------------------------- I can understand the frustrations about not serving a mission. When others talk about their mission, I sometimes comment that I served several hundred missions (Military missions). My humor...is a singular wit at times. However, it places mee me alongside others who are not in that same LDS missionary field of experiences in the judgement of those I say this too. That said, I also feel that a young man who is worthy and able (and being able has never been easier) should serve a mission. Choosing not to do so (as many of my grandchildren have chosen not to) is a reflection of what they feel is important and their choices in life that will probably reverberate and effect them throughout the rest of their lives.

Vaccination doesn't mean one is completely immune with MRNA vaccines, or at least the Covid Vaccines. It lowers the chances of serious illness. Basically, if we look at it like gambling. Hypothetical numbers. Without taking the vaccine, you have a 1 in 10 chance (depending on age, the older you get, the more 1 in 10 it will be, for younger individuals it may be 1 in 10,000. At least for the initial strain, young children were highly resistant to the devastating effects) of dying. 1 in 5 of developing severe symptoms that could lead to hospitalization. If you take the vaccine, that gamble falls to 1 in 100 for death, 1 in 25 for serious complications or hospitalization. That means, in a department which has approximately 700 people, if everyone was vaccinated, and if they were all elderly like me, they could have up to 7 deaths and almost 30 people that are hospitalized due to Covid in this scenario. Better than 70 deaths and 140 hospitalizations. Most vaccines don't ensure total immunity. The amount given varies from vaccine to vaccine. The hope is that if enough gain that immunity then we get herd immunity, which lessens the chance for the disease to infect everyone. As less take the vaccines, herd immunity decreases and the number of cases increases. This is why measles is starting to make a comeback in the states (along with a few other diseases that were eradicated during my lifetime, only to come back because of stupid anti-vaccine ideas these days). People are not vaccinating their kids and enough are not vaccinated that the herd immunity is fading...so those that are not vaccinated have a chance to actually contract the disease now.

I'm glad we can still get the printed version. So much of the world forgets that, we, elderly people exist. I feel I have a better grasp on a lot of the technology out there than other peers my age, but I still feel lost in this world of technology. It's grown so fast that I just can't catch up!

I think the problem is he was denied due process. That is a cornerstone of judicial and legal rights. For example, if I decided you were an illegal immigrant, and illegal immigrants were not granted due process, I could simply deny you due process and send you to a Prison in El Salvador. Now, if those people hated you (and this is why you were originally given assylum, because they would kill you) and wished you harm, once there you would have no protection. It probably wouldn't take a genius to figure out what may happen. No, let's say you were actually a US citizen. Doesn't matter, I already denied you due process. Doesn't matter if it was a right guaranteed to you as a US citizen. I deemed you an illegal, and without due process to say anything different, you were judged and the sentence executed forthwith. Our ideas of what he is or should have had done to him can be important, but due process and other legal rights should be held as important things to uphold, otherwise no citizen will be safe from the same actions that sent this man to a prison in another nation.

Almost All religions have grown by the numbers our Church uses. Most churches do not count members by how many have been baptized in them. Many churches have new members baptized quite often into them. They do not excommunicate these people, and people do not ask to be removed from those churches. If they counted those numbers and only those numbers without accounting for who actually come on a regular basis and actually attend their church, many churches are growing still. Our Church counts our membership by those numbers. Other churches do not. They normally count their numbers by how many active members are in them. This would be equal to if we counted how many were attending our church meetings and were active in Church. This would probably greatly decrease what our numbers are. I have no idea if that would show our actual true active members increasing or decreasing. It probably would be interesting to see, but these numbers are not made public. We may have local numbers (if you are in the Bishopric, a Clerk, or part of the Stake Presidency), but that would not be reflective on what is happening in the Church as a whole. In truth, we have no idea what is happening within our church currently. Some areas have as high as 60% attendance and active members, others are down to 20% or less. I have no idea how we really compare to many of those churches which are "decreasing" in activity, as the way they count their actual numbers and those who are active and attending are different than how we account for our numbers.

I'm not sure on this one. You know I'm actually closer to being a Libertarian than a Republican, and some may even say that I'm closer to deregulation of things. I'm not exactly against people being able to do drugs and the Government getting the heck out of making them illegal. I don't condone people using them, but I'm against an overbearing government that tries to enforce what one has to do and limits freedom. On that note, I'm not sure what to think on this. It seems this is a center devoted to ensuring that if they do drugs, they don't OD on them, and it appears from the article that they've been successful in doing so. I'd call it an undecided on my part. I'm not against others making their own choices. I'm personally opposed to abortion. However, what right do I have to enforce my religion via government on anyone else? In that same light, I'm don't support government funds to pay for abortions except in specific circumstances (mostly similar to what the Church has espoused about abortion, which boils down to medical care. If the life of the mother or child is in danger and it is a medical procedure, then we should probably let doctors be doctors. I think Doctors should be the ones making the calls on the lives of their patients and necessary medical care, not insurance companies and absolutely not a government in most of these instances). This is a pretty long article. Before we being, I try to align my views as much as possible to the current views the Church has, or try to at least. After reading it, there are several subjects found inside of it, and the article itself isn't really a focus on Subsidizing Single Motherhood (and thus probably an inappropriate article to use as a focus for this particular vein of discussion) but more on the argument regarding whether the increase in Single Mothers among Black Americans is caused by more cultural influences or poverty. The article itself could create it's own topic on it's own with it's multi-pronged discussion on the subject, and could be an interesting subject all on it's own, especially within our more religious (I would hope) focused forums. You could post it. I could post a several thousand word post in response to this one article alone. Being concise on it will be more difficult. I support helping people in poverty, whether it is the single mother, the disabled, or the elderly. As the article seems to point out, it's not the poverty itself that is causing this problem. In fact, it's the very idea that poverty is the stem of the cause that makes it so that we ignore the root cause in and of itself, which is the cultural influences on society that create this single motherhood to be more acceptable in our time. Part of the problem with addressing this issue is because if one tries to talk about it in a way that frames it as a result of African-American Culture, they will shortly thereafter be blamed as racist. However, if one looks at how society has changed, and views it more as an issue caused by the Black Culture of the United States, or at least a small subsection of it that's been gaining in influence and popularity (via the movies, music, and other influences that we see stemming from it such as Rap and other areas which promote such moralities), then we see as the spread of this type of culture has gained a stronger foothold and spread more throughout the US, it's become more of an acceptable thing today to be unmarried and yet having children out of wedlock. I would say it's a bane in our culture and what is occurring. However, in regards to helping those who are poor and needy, we should always be ready to try to help them. We should also be firm in our morals and try to teach people that the lord loves them, and because he loves them he knows how to make people happy. People are happier where they have someone they can depend on to always be there for them and to be their own specific special spouse. Rather than a boyfriend or girlfriend that can leave on a whim, leaving children without stable families and parents, the Lord knew we would be happy within a stable family relationship. We should be trying to help teach people and bring them to Christ. I think medical care itself needs an overhaul. My son recently said I should have gone to the doctor for certain things more often. I am getting in poorer health, and as I do I don't want to burden my family in case I rack up heavy medical bills due to my ill-health and probably...death. In such a system overhaul, I do not know where or what would be covered, but people should not have to go bankrupt, or incur such heavy bills upon the end of their lives for medical care. For that matter, they probably shouldn't have to worry about the cost of medical care being so high in the US for any reason as most of the 1st world (and even much of the 3rd world) have better solutions and pay less for healthcare than we currently do in the US. How we can do that and retain our individual freedom and abilities as we do in our current healthcare system...I'm not sure. That is for smarter minds than my own to figure out someday. That said, under the current way our medical system works, I am against such taxpayer initiatives in this area. Hopefully that answers your questions on these matters.

There have been some changes within the church and how it teaches and does things during my lifetime. I am a convert, so there probably have been even more policy changes within the church in my lifetime than I know. Most of these changes are around policy, but as the policies change I find that much of what was once known is no longer known. It is as if people have gotten so wicked that things are now being taken away which once was common. One of those areas pertain to the Priesthood, or the orders of the Priesthood. I have mentioned it a long time ago that there are several orders of the Priesthood, and in order for a man to enter the highest order, it must be done via Celestial Marriage or Sealing. In the past, when one reflects on the things we said and promised (which are things I really cannot go over here, but I may in the Temple with approval from those who preside there), that priesthood is not a male only item, but a joint item. It is something that is held by a couple. The man, as the head of the household exercises the rights to it, and the authority, but it is also something his wife is able to also exercise (or was, at the time). It is in her husbands absence that at times, a wife could call down upon these powers of heaven in situations where it was needed. They would be able to bless their families (or in one case, animals) with that power. It shows that the man needs the woman, and the woman needs the man. That the Father is the head of the household, as the Lord is the head of the Church. You are correct, though it is no longer really seen or practiced, in the past there are stories where women would call upon their husbands priesthood to call upon the blessings of heaven as was seen as their right. I do not know if this would go over well with women of the Church today or not. Policy has changed much of what is said and done, and some of the things in the Temple have changed to reflect these things. Modern policies have changed some of the perceptions of these ideas and they are no longer as strongly reinforced within the Temple or other areas of the church. In that light, I do not have all the answers to Polygamy. I know my wife hates the idea of it. I do not think that is a particularly unusual response towards it within the church. I know that by the time I joined the church it was no longer practiced in general (or at least the idea that while in this world one could be married to multiple spouses that were all alive), and had not been practiced for some time. They still practice a spiritual form of it as we can see from the President of the Church and one of his counselors. I know it can deeply trouble some. I know some (I get the idea that Sister Wendy Nelson, the prophet's wife today) gain comfort that it is something that can be done. I don't have any answers of comfort on this one for you except that I know many individuals (and it's men and women) that are greatly disturbed by the idea, and you are not alone in your feelings.

Perhaps my horror and disgust at some of the things being said on these forums have promoted me to be too aggressive towards those of my own people. In that, I am sorry. I've never said true followers of Christ would be Democrats (I've only stated that Jesus's views are liberal, they were back then, and they are today as wel). There are many platforms that the Democrats have that go contrary to the teachings of the Lord. There are also platforms that the Republicans have that go contrary to the Lord. I'm not talking about Democrats vs. Republicans here, but Conservative views vs. Liberal views with how the world sees them today. I'm a conservative myself (and Ironically, I'm almost positive no one here knows what my actual political beliefs are. I don't think anyone is actually interested in that as they are so caught up in being angry at me that they have no real interest in my own political sway). I find a LOT of what is said on these forums concerning anyone who is not a Trump worshipper. (And if one is not, perhaps they should make it far more clear and speak up against such things, rather than seemingly acquiesce when those of us who do not worship Trump are made to feel uncomfortable, unwanted, despised, and hated). I seem to be one of the only ones that sees this as extremely concerning. However, if these reasons they have for a lot of these statements are valid...I should be easy to convince and bring over to their side. Why would I be easy to convince...or should be? Because, as I said, I am actually a moderate conservative. If you cannot convince me, and I'm actually on your side of the political equation, what makes You think you will convince others? Look...these are the commandments we are ignoring on this forum when we label liberals or insult their intelligence, or any number of other things. ------------------- #1 - Love God with all your heart, might, mind and strength. God does not want you to do things simply because you have to. You do them because you love him. You want to do what he would want you to do. #2 - Love your neighbor as yourself. This is the hardest commandment to follow. If you love your neighbor, you will give them everything. That means you will feed them just as soon as you would feed yourself. You would shelter them, just as soon as you would shelter yourself. I know of almost no one that will do this, but this is an ideal we should strive for. #3 - Love thy enemies. We don't say how terrible our enemies are in this way or mock them. We love them. We hate the sin, but love the sinner. -------------------------------------------- We have this misconstrued idea here that the Lord's values are Western morality, whether it is conservative or liberal. It is not, though with the above statements, Conservatives normally do not have these values. If so, why complain about helping others gain food and shelter? Why is it so offensive that our neighbors (or even our enemies) should have a way (and regardless of whether it is taken under auspices of force such as the Early Church did to members, or in a lesser degree, how the US government does today with taxes) to feed the poor and hungry. Why are we so against welcoming immigrants, no matter who they are, to be with us in our nation and share with them the goodness of what we have (and as I conservative, I know one of these answers. It's because of the fear that we do not have enough for them and that we are simply paying for them without a return for it, as well as criminal elements entering this nation of which will bring crime and misery with it. They have shown they are already willing to break the law...they probably won't have problems breaking others. This does not mean I am on the right in this area, and I've seen the First Presidency seemingly teach a more welcoming aspect towards immigrants. Reality paints a different picture to me than what I see as fantasy, but I also think Jesus would not turn anyone away. We are all beggars before him and all are illegal in relation to his commandments). This is what Jesus taught, and that along with the way they did it in the New Testament is absolutely what many would consider Liberal today. Turning the other cheek, going the extra mile, are all liberal ideals. These have never been Conservative Ideals in my lifetime. I'm leaning more towards Libertarian ideas these days, but I have no illusions that these may not be in line with what the Lord actually desires, and at times it causes me difficulty in reconciling my own politics in regards to what the Lord would teach. In fact, at times in some threads I have actually mourned my own failings in this regard. Most here have no idea what my political ideas really are (and they are simple, when boiled to the heart of it). I defend Liberals on these forums because almost no one else will do so and almost no one else will point out that a Lot of what we are accusing the "Liberals" of doing are things we ourselves are doing. Remember, when one finger is pointing to them, four others are pointing back at ourselves. We are so busy trying to point out the mote in the Liberals eyes, that we don't notice the one in our own. One person...that's it, that I've seen defending Liberals to any degree, and they seem to be Liberal themselves. I've seen one that is lukewarm on how they talk regarding them and is more neutral. I don't see anyone else standing up for them. I am not really a friend to "liberals" but as a Christian, I will defend their image that they can also be good people, because as a Christian, if they are also Christian, they are Family. They are OUR Family. They are OUR people. Do we really want to show our hate and disgust of those who should be our Family? We call them brothers and sisters in church, we call them fellow Saints. Are we, or are we not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or are you members of some other church where those who are "Liberals" are not welcome. As I said, I'm normally considered a moderate Conservative to myself (and as I said also, others consider me just a straight up conservative) and I do not feel welcome at times in many of these threads these days. Many of the things said about those who are not followers of Trump (and if you are not, why not speak up against these things) actually make me feel unwelcome here. They make me feel unhappy and terrible feelings arise due to how I feel in response. It's why I speak up, because if no one speaks up, then these types of things continue to go on. What you DO NOT REALIZE is that, as a conservative minded individual, I feel more able to point out the problems that us conservatives are having because I am one of them. The GREAT IRONY, is that I am not considered Liberal in any way, shape, or form, in any other place but here. In fact, in some places, ironically, I am actually considered a FAR RIGHT conservative. If I, who is seen that way, is considered so far left on these forums that people spout how liberal and far left I am, or how non-conservative I am and I can't understand conservatives or where the movement is and that's why I have problems... That speaks volumes on how far a forum has gone into putting their own political idealogy over that of Christianity or anything else. I am shocked at how quickly this forum has devolved into an area where we could express valid ideas without being labeled as not "good" or even "Evil" because we refuse to bow the knee to Trump. Outside the US right now, contacts I have are painting a grim picture of what Trump is seen as being. Saints worldwide are not "appreciating" the same things that people on these forums think they should. In fact, I'd say quite a number of Saints worldwide suffer from "TDS" as this thread puts it. Do we wish to welcome them to our rooms and discussions, or are these forums only for United States Members who are those who strongly support Trump? Because if it's the latter, that's a great minority of Saints (though from these forums it would seem the majority, this is not reality). A large majority in the Utah, Idaho, Arizona areas may be this far to the right, in fact, it may even be a majority of Saints in the US, but once out of the US, it's not like this. Are we a worldwide church, or are we the small group that pertains specifically to the conservative members (and not even all of them, as I myself can attest personally) that follow and support Trump? Are we brothers and sisters in the Church, or is this some other church that these forums represent?

Thank you for the heads up.

This is something, on it's own that I might not actually disagree with...at all. My actual views on what the Republican party is today, and what the Democrat party is today may actually surprise people here. However, I find as long as I am the sole individual everyone is pointing fingers at as being the "Liberal" sinner who has no clue what Conservatives are (which, once again, kind of makes this entire forums politics a farce) because I refuse to bow the knee on hating those dirty enemies who are liberals (which is the basic idea I get from reading a lot of these threads here), I don't get a ton of opportunity to express what my actual political views are. I find I spend far more time defending those who may actually be my enemies politically due to how aggressively hated they are here, than I do actually discussing my own politics. I find the absolute dishonest statements towards what Liberals and Leftest think these days as something that should be defended against. If we do not understand what they think and how they think than our own arguments against what they actually are trying to do and represent will be less effective. The best way to understand how to fight an enemy, is to understand how that enemy thinks. But we are so busy pointing fingers and labeling, that instead of actually being able to convince others, we just are makng ourselves feel better. If you guys can't convince Me (and as I said, if we really talk politics, I'm actually a moderate conservative, though I am independent as I am not a member of either party), then you definately are not going to convince those who are left of me. I should be easy change to convince...and I can tell you, that you guys are not making much headway. Sure, you can feel good about your own niche group, but if you want to convince others, you probably should go about it a different way. My goal isn't to actually convince either here, but merely defend and at least represent a different mode of thinking than the wierd group think that seems to have taken over this forum. It would probably be far easier to discuss my own political thoughts. However, going back to the idea above, I agree, Trump is pretty radical and at times excessively liberal. For the old time Republicans, it's a little weird to see some of the things he's pushed and how those who claim to also believe in Conservative values being fully in support of those items. Some ideas (such as smaller government) are things where (though in a really chaotic and unorganized way, he's the first to at least attempt this idea for years) it reflects a more traditional Conservative outlook, while others (his weird support of our Enemies in Russia, his tearing down of alliances and weakening the alliance of Nato ...Ezra Taft Benson would be turning in his grave if turning in one's grave were a thing) are absolutely anti-Conservative values. It's a weird mix he has there.

You seem to mistake what a liberal is. A liberal is not necessarily a Far left communist (though, there are some that would probably accuse Joseph Smith and...definately Brigham Young...of being just that). Liberal policies did not even detail many of the things you just mentioned above until the recent 20 years, and in some cases, the past 5 years...and that's mostly among the more far radical left...not most of what would be encompassed in the term liberal. One of the key point things Liberals HAVE fought for has been against Discrimination. One of the major items was against Slavery originally, and then discrimination against those of other races. The Republicans basically abandoned this fight in the mid to late 80s, which was unfortunate (especially if you consider their origins), but it won them a lot of the South which had traditionally been Democrat previously. Liberals are normally just those who are seeking to have a change in something, where as conservative is more for keeping the status quo. Very simple and basic ideas. The changes don't have to be massive or crazy things like you suggest, they sometimes are as simple as wanting to have a 40 hour workweek instead of being forced to work 120 hours (as some crazy DOGE individual recently suggested as an ideal). They sometimes are as simple as saying we should have the ability to practice our religion as Latter-day Saints. In regards to what you are stating though... Jesus never said that you should condemn others for redefining Gender (or, in the Roman's case, that you should fight against the Romans because they had certain actions they did, where they actually did have effeminate men, Gay Partners, etc), but that one should love their enemies, love those that hate them, go the extra mile, and turn the other cheek. Very hard things to do, especially when those who were in favor of all sorts of immoral activity were actively trying to destroy you and your religion in the later half of the century after our Lord's death and ressurection. In regards to children, he said suffer the little children to come to me. He also mentioned that who ever hurt one of them, it would be better to have a millstone around their neck. One of the reasons Jesus was probably sought out to be killed was that he was spreading radical ideas. These ideas, if we look at the new testament, were not about overthrowing the government, but a new way of living. It was one where one gave all that they had and than that was redistributed to the poor (as we can see from the story of the Rich man, and later how it was literally practiced under Peter). Even today, this is a radically liberal stance. No one (even in our more socialistic neighbors in Europe) want to give Everything they have and then just receive a portion of it back...of which they don't even own, but are merely stewards. You try pushing this among the US citizens, I think you'll not only be branded a massively far left liberal, but be hated by even those you consider far left liberals. The government didn't like his teachings, of course it wasn't through the current government. But it was through force. It was far worse than just going to jail. We know the story of Peter and this. You defy this after you pledged to follow it...it would be an execution if you didn't. That's pretty forceful. Brigham Young also enforced these measures pretty strictly, and he was a force of government for a while. He probably enforced it with measures that most here would find pretty intrusive today, far more forceful than what you see government today enforce many of it's lesser laws. Actually, it's the exact opposite. If you read my post you would see my ps on it where I state that this can apply to both sides. The Church itself is neutral politcally. When we are attempting to label people of a different party as the other, we are trying to make it seem as if we are superior or otherwise. I was pointing out that if one is going to automatically try to say Liberals are sinners, or wicked, or other things, what are they saying about General Authorities and leaders of the church that are liberal (and if you read my ps, you would see the same would apply in the opposite direction). That is not the Liberal mindset. If anything, it is we should look to science to see what works and what doesn't, as well as studies. I find that there are many out there that do not want to listen to the evidence no matter how strong it shows something, instead of trying to see what science and studies actually say about something. A stark difference some Liberals want to try to point out these days is that many Conservatives want people to be ignorant of facts and science so that they can push superstition and false narratives on the public. Whereas I won't go that far (and remember, despite the funny way this forum works, where only those who are the "right" type of conservatives are considered conservative...which makes me, and independant who leans conservative, or what some may consider a moderate conservative...the absolute far left in this forum...which really makes this place a farce in relation to actual politics...because if a moderate conservative is your far left...) A prime example is Roosevelt. He had a problem and it was going to take studies a while to figure some of the solutions out. However, he saw that there was a society existing in the US that was not having the same problems that the rest of the US was having during the Great Depression. He went to these people (which, just so happened to be our Church in the Utah area) and wanted to find out what they were doing. They had the experience in this field in how these things worked already. From this was born the Welfare system in the United States. I am actually really proud to be a member of the church (which is also a failing as pride is not something to be happy about) and it's contributions to the US! If you don't like many of the social ideas from the 40s, you only have to blame the church (which some did at the time, the church was an enemy to the conservative movement of the time in some people's minds, it wasn't until the late 60s that this started to change). Up until the past 50 years, the church itself was solidly Democrat and was very liberal in it's approaches to the world and the US. If you look at many of the church policies in relation to traditional Conservative ideas, it still is very liberal. The biggest change that has occurred where a lot of the Liberal ideas of the present diverged from the Church was where the Liberal parties of the West started to push ideas that were morally incompatible with the teachings of the Lord (things which have been suggested in this thread such as allowance of open Homosexuality, etc). Ironically though, the ideas that we should help the poor, take care of the sick and afflicted, and visit those in prison are distinctly LIBERAL ideas still. The alternative, the Conservative side, if you look at it, blames the poor for their own situation (so why help them, it's their own fault). I wouldn't say they want personal responsibility, as much as to shirk responsibility and blame others for their situation. We know from history and research that the Conservative society in the US over the past 50 years has said that they could take care of the poor, but when seeing if they actually give enough to do that, shows that they are no where close to actually being able to back up that claim, much less be willing to do that. It's that realization which is why we probably still have programs like Social Security and Welfare today.

Of interest, the church unveiled a new statue of the 5 bridesmaids (virgins) found in the scripture recently on temple square (at least according to an article I read recently).

This is an area where society has gone absolutely berserk over the past 10 years. I have some thoughts... Freedom is the ability to do whatever you want, until you abridge the freedom of someone else. Tolerance is to tolerate others and their actions, until their words or actions inhibit the freedom or press towards intolerance of another. In that light, in regards to women, we have separation of women from men for various reasons. Some so that they have the freedom to compete with other women and not have to take into account the abilities of men in those measures (women's sports). Some so they are not harmed or hurt by the opposite sex (such as why we would have women's prisons in the first place, or women's restrooms). I have no problem if one wants to be trans. They deserve love ( Love they neighbor as theyself) and freedom to do as they wish. However, what is being pushed today for them in many areas is going to also abridge the freedom of women, and in many instances their cries of tolerance are not cries for tolerance in and of themselves, but tolerance that builds upon an intolerance of allowing women to be free to be women. I don't understand how one can support some of these ideas (for example, I am highly opposed to Transgendered Women, or Men to Women, men who transitioned to women, being in women's sports). It seems that it is an attempt to abridge freedom, and trying to build an intolerance towards women in the name of building tolerance.

I tried to watch Hamilton. I have to say that it is a "musical" which does not appeal to me in the slightest. In comparison, after conference on Sunday afternoon they showed the Sound of Music. That was far more enjoyable, even as a Movie, than Hamilton on Stage. I really don't have anything good to say about Hamilton, so I think I should leave it at that.

I'm already praying that the Second Coming will happen soon, but I think with my failing health, I probably will not be around to see it. However, the important thing is that it doesn't matter in that way, when the Second Coming is, the Second Coming for each man is upon his death when he goes to meet his maker. I only hope he is merciful to me when that time comes.

This is probably one big problem that Democrats have currently, and a problem they had during the election. Rather than support each other, there are a few of them (but a few that make a loud stink, as they have a very loud voice...as words via social media would go) that only seek to tear others down and divide themselves by saying someone isn't far left enough, or isn't supporting their policies enough. You kick enough of your own people out and you are left with less people then you had before.

I don't think I agree with that. If you look at the teachings of Jesus, in today's society, he would be a leftist. I know many supposed religious individuals do not agree with that, but when we look at the things he said and what his church's actions were... He was for sharing equally of all things. No rich or poor among them. Peter was used by the Lord to slay a family that held back some of their belongings, just to stress how strongly an item this was. He wasn't for hating your enemies or killing them. He said to turn the other cheek and to walk the extra mile. He provided free healing to those who were of his people (and even sometimes, those who were not). These are some very liberal ideas, even today. I find MANY religious individuals find these items too liberal for them, where as a LOT of more liberal minded individuals note that the Lord said by their fruits ye shall know them. I know that some of the young people who have been my students have taken up the argument that if Christians do not even follow their supposed Lord, then why should they. They've read the Bible, and they understand many of it's teachings enough to see that what is being argued for today by many is not taught in the bible by Jesus, but are morals taught and practiced by men instead. When we try to other people in this manner, I think it actually is very unchristlike. We are attempting to make them the other and thus lesser to us. This would apply to conservatives and liberals alike, but as for this conversation, it would apply more towards those who are conservative (as I find very few liberals here, much less independents like I am [though technically you could say I'm a moderate conservative in real life, not that one would see it in comparison to this forum where I seem almost like a far left liberal in relation to the views here...which just shows how far to the hard right this forum is currently...where a moderate conservative is considered that far left...is pretty wild if one thinks about it). It's not that the Liberal mind wants someone else to take responsibility, but that they see it as a responsibility that society itself will not do on it's own. The reason for many social programs is because the Religious arms and the more Conservative arms who claimed they were doing charity...were either not enough, or actually did NOT do charity. Hence, other programs to take care of the poor and elderly were utlized. Interestingly enough, in the US, when they first were instituting the Welfare programs, Roosevelt consulted with the Church (our church) authorities on their program (programs that were far more extensive in the type of help they gave their members and how long they gave that help, especially during the great depression era). Welfare was originally based off the church's program (before the 60s came around and did away with the work requirements that they included, even if it meant having the individual dig ditches in front of the office and then fill them in again). Of course, during that time period, the members of the Church were overwhelmingly Democrat and also liberals. Joseph Smith was considered a liberal (and far more liberal than even the liberals of the time tolerated). Brigham Young was considered Liberal (and, he too, with the polygamy stances, was also far more liberal than what was considered acceptable at the time. Throw in how they practiced consecration and his ideas of consecration and it was FAR too liberal for people back then, and probably FAR too liberal for almost every conservative member today if they understood what he did, how he did it, and how strict he was on imposing it). Many of the church Presidents up through the 60s were also Democrats and liberals, though you also started to have more Conservative General Authorities enter the field as we get closer to our time. Even today, though a majority (in my opinion) of the General Authorities are Republicans or Conservative, you still have a few Liberals among them. Do you consider them in that same light? PS: Today, the church does not say one side or the other is wrong, nor that the Saints are evil if they are conservative or Liberal. In fact, the Church takes a neutral stance and holds that we should pray to be inspired by the Lord to choose righteous leaders.

Thanks for the write up on Wicked. My Son and Daughter in Law and my grandkids all saw that movie, and then they went to a travelling broadway (or something like that) stage production of it. I find it ironic. They are about as far Right and extremely Conservative as one can get, so if it has everything you review it with, I don't understand why they loved the stage production (and also enjoyed the movie). I enjoy musicals and had thought about seeing Wicked. I think you saved me time and money as it sounds (from your review) as a movie that I would not enjoy (I'm somewhat picky on movies, most movies today have too much language and violence for me, even those people say don't have that much are normally too much for me to enjoy). I appreciate you taking the time to share this. I have not seen these shows, but Star Trek has always been somewhat liberal. It became even more liberal with the 80s onwards shows, and from what I understand, has continued that trend today (I cannot say I know this personally, as I haven't seen the shows, but it is what I've understood). From those same sources I heard that this movie was terrible though (Section 31). I'm not sure why, but overwhelmingly it seemed like people reviewed it badly.

Well, President Nelson want's us to love each other and to promote peace and love rather than hate and violence. I think that's a good thing to keep in mind over the next few months as turmoil is all around us.

As I said in another thread, I'm still adjusting to other changes they've already made! If they went to 1 hour church, the best solution would be to change it back to what it used to be. Sacrament was an hour or more on it's own. That was one meeting. You only had to go to that. They did not have the block (no 3 hour block, no 2 hour block). It was just Sacrament. Sunday School was another time entirely (and so was Priesthood). They also had sacrament during Sunday School (depending on ward and location). I'd be in favor of that type of One Hour Church, where it was just Sacrament, and then they had other meetings at other times. I don't think that's what people are meaning though. I think it's more as what posters have said above where it relegates the Sacrament Meeting to 1/2 an hour or so, and the other half an hour is the other meetings. That's too short for my liking, but it's not what I prefer, it's what the Lord prefers.

I deal with a Lot of left leaning people (to clarify, I work with students and academia...there's a Lot of liberal people in certain areas of academia). I don't know any of them that have said that. I Have heard some of them say that a lot of the things that have happened recently under Trump would have never happened had he never been elected, and a meme or whatever they call it has gone around saying that if the shooter who tried to shoot Trump when the election was going on had been successful, a lot of the grief they are getting recently would never have occurred. Ironically, wasn't that kid a Republican and from a Conservative family? I would think if people really were okay with shooting Trump we'd hear a lot more about people actually attempting to do so. Then again, maybe it's about to happen and I just have too much hope that people are not like that.

According to the DOJ DoJ gang estimate numbers They seem to think approximately 1 million members of gangs exist in the US. Isn't that one of the reasons Trump is stating for deporting a lot of those he is deporting (and the pictures that I've seen show a group that had the MS-13 tattoos all over their body) them without a hearing? He claims they are a threat and that many of them are doing criminal activity (even if they have not had their day in court to prove it or show it). It's a good point that we do not know the political affiliation of gangs, but I think most Republicans that I know would not want to claim gangs as being politically affiliated with the right. More often, I would think things from the Left (legalization of Drugs, relaxed rules on pornographic material [with the idea of free speech] rather than the laws many conservative states are issuing regarding restrictions on them) would be more of the political arenas the gangs would prefer. There would be areas where the gangs would have a stronger hold and areas where they would be weaker (for example, Salt Lake would probably be a safer area in the case of a Gang violence, whereas Chicago with an estimated 100K gang members probably would not be). Of course, the gangs are not the only people that have guns on the left. There are 45.1 million Democrats. Supposedly 20% of them also are gun owners (and I would imagine some have been trained on them, for example, Walz who was the recent VP candidate under Harris has had training with weapons). That would be around 9 million more right there. How many voters have a party affiliation Pew Research About Americans and Guns And of course, that doesn't mean that encompasses all those on the left. As per another thread, some one said that 55% of Democrats condone violence (against the President). I believe it's the Trump Derangement Syndrome Thread. That doesn't sound very unviolent to me. That would mean, with 55% of 9 million you'd have almost 5 million (4.95) armed and angry people. I do not condone violence, and I hope that violence like that doesn't break out. However, if people started to threaten this type of stuff, I'm not sure that it would be something to easily laugh off either.