JohnsonJones

Something else that I thought of when driving out to Texas, but which isn't about the eclipse itself. When I was younger Westerns were quite a big deal. I realized as I entered Texas that there were a lot of lies in those Westerns. They all look like Eastern California more than Texas, at least the part we were driving through. It should be no surprise, seeing that East Texas is basically bordering a swamp state, nevertheless, it never really struck me before. East Texas is extremely green and humid. It looks nothing like the dry forest and areas of California. Yet, in so many Westerns of my youth that's exactly what they tried to portray.

I have heard that, or at least a similar theory. The idea was that as we have a greater and larger population, as things appear to be more limited and have a harder time to support a population, the natural evolution would be to have individuals that remove themselves from the gene pool, thus eliminating that number of reproductive individuals and thus decreasing the number of children created. I haven't seen any evidence that shows it, but I have heard that theory. There is also a theory I've seen that charts the decrease in how rapidly a population increases as that population grows. I think it was a TED talk. In it, the individual showed that in more educated and wealthier nations the population growth slows among the citizens. In theory, according to what he said, I think it was thought that the Human Population would peak around 10 Billion and that is around where it would stay, at least under present conditions forcasted.

I have. It was NOT because I was an intolerant jerk in this instance. I was actually defending some students who were part of the LGBTQ identification spectrums (a few Transgendered at the time, and one or two of their friends who were Gay). They were being attacked in a way that another Transgendered individual and their group of friends (a large number of them, a mixture of Transgendered, Gay and Lesbian individuals along with quite a number who claimed to be Bi) were trying to have their student visas removed. The REASON had NOTHING to do with orientation in that manner, but dealt directly with Racism. It's where I discovered that there a MASSIVE problem with racism in the LGBTQ community. Shockingly enough, this was racism towards some Asian students (we won't get into the details, but what they thought was a valid excuse was absolutely ridiculous. It wasn't worded this way, but basically boiled down to the idea that they felt uncomfortable attending classes with individuals from certain Asian nations due to events in the world, or so they claimed). It was there that I learned calling someone CIS can actually be considered an insult by some in that community, as well as the idea that since I was "CIS" I could not possibly have any understanding of the situation (but as I said, it was NOT about LGBTQ, but racism, and that's nasty no matter who is doing it in that instance). AS I do research in some portions of Asia at times, I think I had a better idea of the cultural and societal impacts relevant to the case than some white LGBTQ American kids who spent their entire lives in the United States. It was nasty, it was disgusting, and we had to get the administration aboard to back me up. Ultimately no one got banned, but we did have to move some people around regarding classes as making adjustments to accomodate others (which one could also see as me losing as much as my winning the battle. The minority students remained, but I paid a personal cost in having to readjust the department to accomodate the racist attitudes towards them). It was something that I find unfortunate, that there is some segment (and I have no idea how widespread it is or isn't, but it seemed that a majority of the white LGBTQ were actively discriminating against those who were from a minority race at the time, though it may also have to do with them being Transgendered...there were at least two Transgendered students among the racists group as well). The LGBTQ have focused the issue so much on themselves being a minority that it seems that sometimes the discrimination they might practice among each other is being ignored by society at large as well. This is not to detract from the thread, but to point out that we are ALL human and have fallibilities. Most of these students were delightful and intelligent individuals on their own, but it was one of the nastier things I've had to deal with from over the years. The big thing to remember is that we should love ALL our neighbors if we can, and respect them as well. Whether it goes for whatever classification we are giving others (orientation, race, gender, religion, disability, etc), we should show everyone that they are individuals worthy of our respect. Plus, my job also prefers I give everyone respect and equal treatment in regards to students, staff, and faculty.

This is NOT fact in what I am about to give a thought about, it is merely a though regarding WHY the wordings differ from when Joseph gave them and what occurs NOW. This is not even opinion, it is less than that, so hopefully no one jumps down my throat for my thoughts (even if I haven't a penny for them). First, it is a stylistic CHOICE of how to put the revelations down. That is a very simple reason. A DEEPER reason could deal with HOW those revelations are approved. The Twelve apostles collectively had the same authority and power as the Prophet Joseph Smith. This means, what he could do singularly needed to be collectively approved by them. This is why, when Brigham Young wanted to declare some things as doctrine, but someone like Orson Hyde disagreed...it was therefore unable to be declared as doctrine. To be declared as doctrine, as Joseph would have, it instead needs to the collective approval of the twelve because only together do they hold the collective authority that the Singular Prophet did. In that same light, should Twelve ever be completely eliminated, the 70 in theory have the collective authority that the Twelve do, and thus could reconstitute the twelve apostles and also institute a prophet. Any revelation though would need to be collectively approved by ALL of them rather than just the twelve at that point to be authoritative. IN that same light, should the 70s all be destroyed, the authority to restore the seventy, the twelve, and the prophet lies within the Elders of the Church, but then, as before, a new revelation to be authoritative would need to be collectively approved.

My understanding is it actually does not contradict what we teach at all, but understanding what Brigham Young stated is hard to understand without the Spirit. From what has been stated by others, inclusive of Joseph F. and his son Joseph Fielding as well as others who are more studied than I in the matter, Brigham is VERY specific in his wording. A KEY to understanding it then is to understand that what Adam means is basically Man, and that When using the term Adam, it is saying the term man as well. In addition, there are Two Adams that Brigham Young refers to, Father Adam, and Adam. One is the Father of the other. This wording is also utilized by Brigham Young in reference to the Prophets Joseph Smith (the Father and Joseph). Both were prophets, though as one was the Prophet of the Restoration, the other was the Patriarch of it. The reason we no longer teach it is because without enlightenment it is VERY easy to misunderstand. There are MANY misunderstanding surrounding it that led to some pretty drastic disruptions in regards to the doctrine. Thus, it is easier to drop it as well as the misunderstandings of what it actually said or says, and instead teach a much simpler and straightforward version of it, which is what we have today (IMO).

I've only read the first page thus far, but the last revelation that is in our canonized scriptures is actually from only 45 years ago (almost 46 years). It came prior to the date listed, but the text gives the date of September 30, 1978. The revelation itself was received in June of that year, presumably. It is found in your Doctrine and Covenants at the end of it. We have not had a Revelation put into our scriptures since that time, but that does not mean there has not been revelation. We have not had Revelation that has been canonized and approved by the Church membership since that time that I know of, but that does not preclude that there has been revelation, only that it has not been presented before the body of the church as such for approval.

What were some of the items he noted in his journal where the polygamists were in error and/or disobedient to covenants?

The other half is extreme violence.

I went, no idea how to load pictures onto the forum. @MrShorty has a far better picture than anything I got, and @Carborendumhas great pictures as well. We delayed going back to Florida until the next day...that was a mistake. We were just in time for storms to hit Texas and then Louisiana. Great Eclipse though. We ate at the Cracker Barrel in Killeen. It was cloudy but still clear enough to see through the clouds to see the eclipse. Perfect for it, actually, as it meant that my camera could actually catch the eclipse as it happened. Then it cleared up right as the eclipse happened. My phone camera only catches it as a bright spot since we had a clear sky for that part, so my camera could not do it justice. We laughed afterwards as then the clouds disappeared and then that afternoon the sky was blue and clear. Took a picture of the surroundings during totality, but the picture makes it look much lighter than it actually was. Probably only full Eclipse I'll get to witness in my life, but it was worth the trip.

TLDR; Police officers are Civilians in the same way other Civil Servants are Civilians. Fire Fighters, Judges, Animal Catchers, County Coroner, Dispatchers and others are also Civil Servants and are considered civilians in the same light that Police and deputies are considered civilians. They are hired by the local and state governments and serve the public and their elected officials rather than the Federal military or a military service. They are given power and authority from the people to perform those duties. Some of these powers and authorites grant them the ability to do things that the normal populace are not allowed to do (would be illegal for the populace to do). The Term Civilian is generally used by the military to define those who are fighting (the military) in uniform, vs. those who are not part of the military and are part of the populace. You don't want a military force to be the police, you WANT them to continue to be Civil Servants like other Civil servants are. Police, historically, have been counted as civilians. Sometimes it is more obvious (voting for a sheriff which comes from the populace) and at times less obvious. Traditionally this meant those on the police or deputies were coming from the local community, were locals from the citizenry, and had a VESTED interest in the community as they were FROM that community. (military is not necessarily invested in the local populace and can be used against the populace). In the past 40 years there has been a militarization of the police. Some find it somewhat alarming, others feel it gives the police more unity and more structure. I'll give multiple angles on how this has affected various processes and society. One problem some see with this is that police no longer see themselves as part of the community or part of the citizenship in some areas. Instead, they have adopted a police vs. the people (which...if I don't have to tell you, is bad in multiple ways as that was one of the primary things that have caused the rise of such lovely things as the Nazi's, or later, the solidification of control by lovely individuals such as Stalin and other Communist leaders who used the police against the populace rather than FOR the populace). They call others civilians (even, ironically, at times, the military) and they consider themselves something separate. In fact, with the militarization of the Police, some consider themselves a quasi military rather than a civilian force. The problem with this is that US law forbids the Federal military from enforcing laws in the US and tradition and interpretation of the Constitution disallows it as well (Link a).* The police came about BECAUSE they were a civilian force. IF the police ever outright declare they are not a civilian force and are instead...a military organization, it causes an instant problem in regards to the US laws and traditions regarding military and militarization in regards to law enforcement. In addition, it directly conflicts with their jobs as Civil Servants and what a Civil Servant is supposed to do as well as the powers granted to them. (hired by the public and for the public benefit, or by representatives of the public FOR public benefit...military is NOT for public benefit generally, but for defense). The National Guard fills a peculiar gap in that though it is a military force, it is considered more of a Governor's local militia when under a Governor and when used are NOT considered a Federal military. IT MAY be considered a local MILITIA and hence a type of military, but NOT the Federal Military. There is a difference between the Federal Military and militia. National Guard are considered active military only when activated and commanded by the US government (and hence why they only get the military benefits when they have been activated BY the US government). They CAN be used in a public servant role, but when activated by the Federal government are NOT public servants, do NOT serve the public, and are normally in a military capacity fighting against those who are NOT members of our nation (except in cases of insurrection). This division that some departments see when they label those who are not police as civilians creates a divide which means that, at least in theory, mentally those police do NOT see themselves as well integrated or a part of the communities they supposedly serve. This can have serious ramifications of which we have seen in communistic nations and other places where tyranny rules with the police more as enforcers for the rulers rather than protectors of the people. On the otherhand, the militarization has had some beneficial markers as well. Less police officers die in relation to previous years (so even if numbers go up, in the same situations and percentage wise, they have decreased) due to training and emphasis on various factors which have led police to be a safer occupation than Loggers, Pilots, Derrick operators in oil and gas, Roofers, Garbage collectors, Delivery Drivers, Farmers and more. Over 20 other occupations are more dangerous today then being a police officer. This is directly due to the changes we have had for the police force in the past few decades. (Link 1, Link 2) In addition, police themselves are less likely to be corruptible (there is STILL corruption, obviously, but less supposedly occurs with the structures and order that they've installed over the past few decades) overall. Finally, it has led to better training overall in regards to knowing their job, what they are doing, and many other aspects of their occupation. The big thing though, is that Police are not military, but are in a group that we know as Civil Servants (or that's how they are supposed to be defined). Most would say Civil Servants (and there are many government workers that fall into this group, not just police, but most of those would NEVER claim not to be a civilian) are civilians as per how that term as been used over past century (it is a term to divide between those who fight in wars, such as the military, and those who do not, which are civilians). In that light, though there ARE police that will claim they are not civilians (and scarily enough, some US citizens seem to support this idea) in the United States, IN THE US, police are civilians though they may be granted more power to enforce laws and such in their duties as Civil Servants. Civil Servants are civilians that are NOT military but are public servants or public employees, normally paid by the local governments and employed with certain duties granted to them BY that government (such as a DA who is paid by the city or county, or other city and county positions like the Sheriff, the Chief of the Fire Department...AND of course, the Chief of Police/Sheriff, etc). * Though this is NOT a new thing and was taught in civics classes in High School when I was a boy, I've learned the US educational system has gone downhill in many areas. I expect that what I said above may be unpopular among some crowds today, especially those who favor having a military force as police over the land rather than Police being servants of the people and serving as a type of Civil Servant (and all that it includes) instead. The police being Civil Servants is actually one of the items which helps guarantee our freedoms as they are granted certain powers and authorities from the local or state governments they are hired by (that military cannot and do not receive) and serve as a barrier between the military and the people, as well as were seen as the PROTECTORS of law and order in society for many decades previous due to their roles in this area. They have a distinctive job different than that of the military. Asking if they are civilians is akin to asking if Fire Officers are civilians or not, or if the Animal catcher is a civilian or not, or if a judge is a civilian or not, or if the DA is a civilian or not, or if the Health Officers are civilians or not (actually, there IS an exception to this one, the Commissioned Corp of the Public Health service are considered Uniformed members in the US and I believe are able to also claim benefits from the VA). They are civil servants with duties, powers, and authorities assigned to them. Many of them are integrated with each other. For example, a police officer may be able to do temporary items without a judge or DA, but due to the powers and authority of a Judge, a Judge is required in many of the things an officer is able to do in the performance of their duties. This applies to many various Civil Servants in pursuit of their duties. In the US having the police this way is a GOOD thing. Unlike other nations where police are reportable to someone like a King or the Federal government, because the police are under a more local government (unless you are part of the Federal Police corp or FBI or other Federal service) they are reportable to the people and the people's representatives rather than a military force, military commander, or the Federal government.

The news I have heard is that Ukraine is currently in trouble. Even with material coming from others, it takes time to separate out. This week Russia had a break through and is rushing reinforcements to the line to try to take advantage of that breakthrough to try to make it a break out and make Ukraine's lines collapse. Thoughts on why Russia had a breakthrough are multiple (and the reason is probably a combination of them) from where Ukrainian troops were having to conserve ammunition to the point that they were not being as effective, to the idea that they had just swapped out armored divisions and it was the new armored division that got pulverized. I wish we had the Republicans from Reagan's era and before. I'd even take the Republicans from Bush's era. The Republicans in office today that influence things (like MTG) seem more like the Far LEFT ANTI-WAR LIBERALS that we've had in the past. If we just had the old Republican party Ukraine would be swimming in supplies, the political democratic negotiations would have Ukraine flooded with troops from...somewhere...and Russia would be probably sucking a very sore thumb at this point. Instead we have a few very far left liberal tree hugging anti-war Republicans (In Name ONLY...which is what I think trump ultimately is...) who delayed so long it has hurt our friends in the conflict and helped the enemy (and have no doubts, Russia is NOT our friend, and when they finish with Ukraine they have eyes on bigger fish...which WILL bring us into a conflict which could make us lose our young men and cost us MUCH more dearly than it would have if we had simply supported Ukraine from the start...of course, that started way back with Obama...but when you have Obama and these looney anti-war Republicans in the same boat...you KNOW something is definitely WRONG with what has happened to the Republican party these days). The funny thing, back when Reagan was president I was pretty much a straight up Republican down the line as far as my voting goes, but these days with how the Republicans have acted...I can't vote for a group that blows up the federal budget because they can't do basic math (if you reduce taxes enough then OBVIOUSLY you will not have enough income to pay for the bills you used to which obviously will blow up the deficit...which is EXACTLY what these Trump Republicans have done much to my chagrin...and instead of taking responsibility for what they have done they try to point fingers at everyone else) or stand with our enemies and against the spread of democracy in other nations (not that Democrats are entirely innocent either, there's a bunch of them that do not seem to realize that the biggest democracy in the Middle East is actually Israel).

I have a similar thing happen to us. I am technically now a millionaire...but I definitely don't feel like a millionaire and it isn't in a way I can actually spend it. It is simply because my HOUSE is now worth a LOT more (I think 2.5X to 3X of a value increase over the past 4 years probably is about accurate, we had it appraised for property taxes around 2019 and the current appraisal was around 3X what the last one was just recently). I think it's rubbish. The amount of money I can spend hasn't gone up, I don't have more money really, but simply because they say my house is worth more I'm supposedly richer... It just doesn't feel right.

That depends on where you live. I think you live in Texas...isn't that correct. Texas lacks income taxes...and the money to fund the government has to come from somewhere. I believe Texas (California is even worse, and Florida is beginning to inch towards uncomfortable from what I'm hearing) has higher property taxes than many other places in the US. My property taxes are relatively light, and not that costly. That goes towards funding schools and other things in our local area, so considering that amount it's very little to pay for what we get in return for us. (I believe I COULD apply for an exemption in regards to veteran status and age, but I do not see a need to. If I were in Texas I might desire to do so though from what I hear about Property taxes there).

It seems that Utah gets a LOT of temples comparatively to elsewhere. I think we need a few more in the East Coast and South East to balance things up a bit.

Isn't Negative income tax just another coin, or another side of the coin of Universal Basic Income? Experiments showed (on a quick look up) that it only returned a postive $1 for every $3 taxed on it. It may be different if we restricted it only to those who were able to qualify for Social Security, but we'd still need a Social Security Tax in order to provide for it. However, it is a considered by some a form of UBI, which many also consider another form of Socialism. Personally, I'm not sure what I think of UBI or other ideas similar to it right now. Some of the ideas sound off to me, so I don't think I'm in favor of it, but at the same time...in regards to Social Security, that's the only form of income some people have. ON the otherhand, if we instituted Negative Income Tax, I probably would still be taxed on SS in my paycheck, but may not get a check from the government anymore in that sort of payment scheme.

Thanks. I am heading out that way Tomorrow. I am driving to Killeen with two of my sons. We should be hitting Louisiana and that area on Saturday and hopefully Houston and the rest of the way after that. Hopefully we don't run out of gas either, but we are hoping on staying in hotels along the way (have hotels already reserved in Killeen at least, as long as we make it). If we do make it, seeing conference in the Stake Center could be nice.

The change in wording is only a clarification in some ways. We believe in a Spirit World, but that Spirit World is divided into two parts (at least). There is Spirit Prison and Spirit Paradise. It may be that the interpretation was that they would go to the Spirit World, but be in Spirit Paradise rather than Spirit Prison. For those who do not believe in a time between life and the resurrection (and where they may believe that what comes after is the end, thus prison is hell and paradise is heaven and that is it), then they could believe that the thief was going to be in heaven that day (or, what we may interpret as the heaven after judgement). However, in our understanding, Paradise would still be part of the World of Spirits. The fact that it is not defined whether it is Paradise or Prison in the translation gives it more of a mystery, but with the thief's statements and how the Lord responded to him a reasonable and logical thought would probably be that the Lord was telling the Thief that they would be able to end up in Paradise (whether sooner or later is a little harder to define probably from that statement) and be with him. As it was in the middle of a crucifixion, it would depend on when the Lord said it, as being crucified could take quite a while to actually die. It was a painful and torturous death, so unless they were already close to death, it may have not been that actual day he ended up there unless something sped it up (or it was as another poster commented, the comma is located at a spot which indicates the Lord saying it that day in reference to the future). It could also have been referencing more of a time frame or period in the Lord's time rather than that specific day where they were hanging from crosses.

The beads are still around, at least with some college age individuals. I've seen a few wearing them in the past few years. The trend that I REALLY am not fond of though is the nose rings. For some reason there is an inordinately large amount of women wearing these nose rings these days. I don't know what spurred on this trend. We never felt these things looked nice when I was their age (of course, we'd have seen them more as a pirate or something like that with a nose ring), and I can't imagine that young men find it attractive now...but maybe tastes have changed.

I would probably ALSO trust the police force far more when it comes to arresting people. The military is trained more to kill then to restrain (or detain), at least the portions I served in and when I served.

I was in the military. I saw combat. I've cleared buildings. We had MORE rules as military than what I saw in the video and that was years ago. (Edit: to be clear, I do not know the rules for the Utah police on how they clear buildings, my only experience is with military situations). Those who are NOT military, are civilians. There are MANY civilians who want to claim they are not (for example, today, I am a civilian, I am no longer in the military). Police in the United States are not Military. Most Military forces are prevented from doing police roles in the United States by the Posse Comitatus Act. However, States MAY have military in the form of their National Guard which can act in that role under the direction of the Governor or whoever is over them in the State. They are distinctly identified differently than Civilians in general. Your general Police officers are NOT military, they are a civilian force (which also means there is an easier process for them to be fired in general and they also have certain rights as citizens that military do not have when acting in their official military duties). A military member gives up certain rights in their roles due to keeping good order and discipline in the military which civilians normally do not have to abide by. There are items which a military member can be punished for where as a Civilian may be fired, but cannot be punished. (For example, you lose certain rights to free speech while in your capacity as a military member, you lose the ability to be free from search without a warrant while on a military installation and if you live on base, they can search your quarters without a warrant, in theory adultery is a punishable offense amongst others whereas civilians will not get jail time for this type of crime). There are crimes in the UCMJ which you can go to prison for which are not punishable if you do them as a civilian. Maybe I am (clarification: ignorant of the Utah Police's building clearing tactics when involving little kids sitting on a floor with no weapons or hostility). I was in the military and in the front lines. This means clearing buildings (though sometimes that would be more like huts and holes). There was probably a lot more hostility and enemy combatants at times than what I imagine most police would see in a lifetime. Lots of gunfire. You mistake me as wanting an apology of some sort? I am not after an apology, I was looking for an explanation that made sense. Time stamp of 7:42 with an officer with a rifle approaching a child. There was another officer that seemed to be accompanying them. The child did not appear to be hostile or a threat. They could have had the other officer holster their weapon and approach the child to be less threatening. The entire conversation seemed ridiculous to me as the officer talking was a stranger with a weapon. If nothing else, he could have remained and covered another officer who was less threatening (and later they have one, but not that initial conversation). I don't think you've ever been on the front lines wondering if a kid is being used and is going to blow you up and try to kill you. It's a terrible situation. IF you HAVE to kill a kid, or worse, kill one by accident, it is a scar that you will NEVER get over. It doesn't matter how justified people may say or tell you, unless you are some sort of psychopath, this is a scar you cannot really ever recover from. You will have nightmares about it for the rest of your life. If you see something like this video where I point it out, even if you were just the witness to it, you will (unless, of course, you are the aforementioned psychopath) you will probably have questions. In that light, it would make sense to have a different policy or approach to spell out a situation like this. It protects both the child and the officer. I would rather die than shoot an innocent child on my own accord today, and I can't imagine anyone who would have a different opinion. Maybe you have been in that type of situation, maybe you have not. I can only relate my own thoughts and feelings on it, and seeing that portion made me uncomfortable with how it was dealt with. You can say it's ignorance of police procedures (and perhaps it is, as I stated, I am NOT a police officer in any way, shape or form). I am not anti-police. I've not really followed the case closely, and the video is probably my first real exposure to the case and what happened in it in any great detail. What part of this Did you interpret as being Rather than asking for an explanation?

I am not looking for a reason, I haven't seen police doing something like that previously. Perhaps it's because I haven't been on the wrong side of the Law. HOWEVER, if that's what the police do to look for kids...and it's standard...you are right...I HAVE A SERIOUS PROBLEM with CIVILIAN POLICE doing such stuff. I did not know that was a standard protocol for Utah police, and finding out from you that it is a standard protocol does not actually make me feel any better about that situation portrayed in the video. Why would your standard protocol be to be guns out when making first contact with a child (that they were looking for). I can understand why a kid would be scared to even talk in that situation even if they were a normal kid that hadn't been abused! The video does NOT make it clear they are clearing the building, it seemed to state they were trying to find children. It could have been both, but in that instance there needs to be a protocol where there is SOMEONE the children can approach with out fear. You can have others covering that individual, but you need to have someone the children will be less likely to be scared of than everyone having guns drawn searching for a child. IN MY OPINION of course, and obviously, I am not a police officer in Utah (or anywhere else for that matter). 1. That makes a little more sense, they probably should have mentioned something like that in the Video (or if they did, I didn't catch that). It makes sense why they'd be clearing the house then, though I'd still say they should have at least one person for the children to approach or to approach the children (unless they felt the children were going to be attacking the officers as well, which wasn't the impression I get). Have that person covered by others, but someone who doesn't have a pistol drawn approaching a child to talk to them and coax them more comfortably (and yes, later in the video it shows such individuals, but initial contact should not be a surprise to anyone that a child would be scared of strange men, even if they were officers, with guns drawn trying to talk to them). 2. Holy Smokes...that's crazy! So, that indicates she KNEW what she was doing was wrong! That's insane. She was knowingly doing something she knew was illegal or would get her into legal trouble!? Why would she knowingly do such a thing? That blows my mind! I guess some people do these things (and I know they do, but it never ceases to amaze me), but in this instance with kids...just...I can't even imagine why. She was supposed to be helping them and instead...she knowingly was doing terrible things. Terrible. Atrocious. I can see why people are so angry about this.

Thing I think was the scariest were Police were going through the house at the ready position, as if they were ready to shoot someone or expected someone to come out attacking them. Weird position to have when trying to find kids in a house. If I were that kid I'd be afraid as well. Still holding the gun as they talked to the kid at first also??? What were they thinking the kid was going to do??? Not sure it's a good look for the department on that point. Another unanswered question, why was Hildebrandt on her phone with her attorney? Was she aware she had done something questionable already and wanted to have the attorney ready the instant the authorities showed up? The video leaves me with more questions than answers. Maybe that's what it's supposed to do as I expect it's an advertisement for a show?

Hmmm, well, when I was younger I was tested with an IQ normally around 155 (IQ can vary in tests given dependent on day, time, personal feelings that day, etc). Normally it was right about that range and with most tests I took in earlier years I was normally in the 99% so I suppose that would match. One of my daughters is much smarter than me, usually having an IQ around the 160 range. On the otherhand, I had a son who always felt somewhat left behind her, even though he constantly wanted to prove himself in smarts. He had an IQ of around 110. What I noticed though was that he turned out to be a MUCH HARDER WORKER than she was. He was much more dedicated to what he did, and in that way turned out much more successful. I also had a daughter who had a much lower IQ, but was extremely charismatic. She dazzled everyone and had boys falling out of the woodwork to try to ask her out when she was younger. In that light, I'm not sure IQ is much more of a way of measuring how fast we catch onto things and how good we are at taking tests. Perhaps there are other forms of ability (IQ of other sorts such as work ethic, people skills, etc) that are just as important but that we don't regularly test for or design tests for. In that way, each of us may be geniuses in different areas. While I may have the "IQ" smarts on paper, I may be the equal of a low IQ individual in the area of computers or mechanics. Fixing cars is definitely not my forte, but there are those who it comes as easy as eating a piece of pie. it is possible that the Lord was talented in ALL of those areas, not just how we measure "IQ" but in personal skills he was a genius, relating to others he was a genius, and many other areas that are just as important, if not more important, in his ministry. How do you rate those? Normally we don't and so I'm not sure how important it really is to give out a number. I may have stated a number above regarding how I have tested in the past, but in real life it has no real bearing to how successful I am or how much of a good person I am (and how good you are is really what TRULY matters at the end of the day/life). In the important areas of life that number is meaningless. It doesn't actually represent anything meaningful, or that has true impact. In that way, I'm not sure if we could measure all the ways the Lord was a genius, but I'm not sure it matters either. What really matters would be that he KNOWS each and everyone one of us, knows what and how we think and WHY we think that way, loves us, and through him and his atonement we can be cleansed of our sins, raised from death and resurrected in perfect form through faith in him and doing the things he has asked us to do to show that faith.

Sounds Interesting, and though PG, it seems like it may not have too much of anything (language, violence, etc) on my list of things not to watch. Interesting subject matter as well.

401K's have only been around since the late 1970s (1978??). We haven't had a big enough crash in the US to actually test how vibrant they are yet. WE have been fortunate. We have not had that once in a century crash (some think 2008's recession was it, but it was no where close. We have been blessed thus far to be able to get our way out of things before they get too bad). WE haven't had an economic crash such as the Great Depression (or after that, the aftermath of World War 2 in Europe and parts of Asia, one reason why the US economy was so robust in the 1950s-1980s). Those literally took a decade or two to get out of for each area. Social Security is a result of one of those Economic crashes. It's not a good look to have your elderly starving to death and dying on the streets (and worse than that). Going back there have been other crashes similar to these in history, but nothing really recent. If we had a crash like that, I would not gamble that the stock market would actually even necessarily survive. If it did occur, we could be several decades before someone gets out of it. It's not like a 40% crash (or even 50% which wasn't unusual for some accounts in 2008), but something like a 90% crash (how is that possible? Some go down to 0 in worth, others are barely in subsistance, etc, but the big kicker are the big brokers and those who handle the retirements go broke and disappear which cause 99% of investosrs, the small investors, lose everything). The stock market might survive and many come out on top, but it could also be that many of the financial services that HANDLE the stocks for the common person and those 401K and other accounts (another thing that came out of the Great Depression was insuring your bank accounts, but that's only to a certain amount which in no way would give me enough to survive my retirement today, much less future generations) go bankrupt and all your investments disappear with them (meaning most of the public lose their retirements, even if the more wealthy may actually get wealthier). This was what they were afraid could happen in 2008 (and may have happened to a large degree with at least a minority of the population without the interventions the government did) but managed to avoid. Which means, until it's actually tested by a REAL and LARGE economic crisis in the US (which also normally means people are literally starving on the streets, the homeless are quite visible, not just those tent cities, but people walking commonly, going door to door, etc), I don't know if the current ideas of 401K will actually survive and be good ideas. We are due for one in the next 30-40 years, but I don't know when it will hit or if we will actually be able to postpone it. Maybe it will hit at the same time SS crashes? That could be a stimulus to push us over the edge into one.