JohnsonJones

I'm not so sure I agree with the idea of either you are progressing or regressing. There is a very damaging idea in corporatism today (not to be confused with capitalism, which is the ideal, corporatism and monopolist are probably the counter of capitalism in the opposite direction of socialism if one thinks about it) that you must always be increasing your profits. Each Quarter needs to be better than the last and you must always be expanding. However, sometimes the best course is to simply stay where you are at. An Empire is normally the precursor to a nation's fall. Sometimes that fall is greater than what they would have been had they merely been content with existing. This also goes along with what the Chemist writes above, and IS problematic. As per his own statement, things progress until they reach their zenith (like an Empire) and then regress after that. This would indicate that once we reach the zenith in eternity, we automatically start regressing. That's a TERRIBLE idea and one that is ignored after he talks about it and forgets to apply THAT principal to his ideas in what follows as well. I think there could be eternal progression, there can also be regression, but I also think there are those that can just be existing. They are neither progressing or regressing, but have an end to their progress and regress in the glory that they receive.

Maybe. I think, as @Still_Small_Voice voice said, is that it's basically designed like a Ponzi Scheme. It works as long as you have an ever increasing number of payers...the problem is the payer base is decreasing. For any Ponzi scheme, that is normally the precursor to the death knell. Obviously, others putting their hands in the pot does not help, but the root of the problem from what I see is that SS is reliant on more people paying into the pot than those who are taking it out. In all honesty, the money I get from SS today is NOT the money I put in. The money I put in was used LOOONG ago by those who were utilizing SS when I was paying into the pot. The average lifespan increasing as well as the numbers going from bottom heavy (a LOT of younger workers supporting a lot fewer older retirees) has changed to a more equal numbers or in worst case scenarios (as us Baby Boomers are now retired and Gen-X looks to join in) to being top heavy means that the original idea of it no longer works to sustain itself long term. Like a Ponzi scheme the idea was that the larger younger generation would always be growing far larger than the older generation so you always had a larger growing number of investers vs. those who were taking things out at the top. I've heard the same things as you in that thus far there has been no shortage of funds, but with how it is designed and how things are today, it is bound to fail sometime. I have no idea whether it will last throughout my life or not. On the otherhand I could die tomorrow which would mean I wouldn't need to worry about it (though my wife would have the paperwork to go through in that case), but the problem for everyone else would still be out there. I don't think privatization is really the answer either if we see what is going on with the 401K's out there today. We have been fortunate with the Stock Market, but it's largely a gambling scheme with how people handle their stuff today and I'm not so sure that's the best way to do things either. All it takes is a really massive crash that could take a couple decades to recover from and that will kill a WHOLE LOT of people who have 401K's for retirement. Do that with SS as well and you could have a complete collapse of people's retirements. Of course, perhaps we should consider going back to how society used to be centuries ago (and in some nations it is still like this today) where Kids live with their families until marriage (and sometimes beyond) and then they support their parents afterwards. Of course, with how Western society is going over the past century, with a lot less respect and honor towards parents (a lot of vitriol among the younger generation for the older generation) and more independence with children from their parents that would be a very hard pill for Western society to stomach today.

The easiest solution is the one they will not choose. The easiest solution is to raise taxes on Social Security, and a simple method is to make it so there is no limit on how much you make that can be taxed. If you make 2 million in a year, it is taxed for Social Security. At the same time, do NOT increase the limits on how much one can withdraw. This action right here would probably extend SS for awhile longer. Secondary would be to simply raise the retirement age. Raise it to 70 or higher. That also would extend it. Now, I note that I am waaay past the SS age already, so many would probably be saying...okay Boomer. You got your cake and now you want to keep everyone else from getting theirs...or something like that. I admit I've been blessed in this regard, but if I live as long as I plan (I plan to go over 100!! no idea if I'll ever make it though), I'll be facing those shortages right along with others who haven't started their SS yet. I think the most likely thing that will happen is that the politicians will continue to kick the can down the road until we are about a week from it going away. Then they will all scramble (like they do with the Budget recently) only to discover this problem isn't as easy to fix...and that will be it. I only hope I have enough money in my retirement accounts that I can get by if that ever happens (though with my luck, all stocks will fail, the banks will go bankrupt, and all the rest of my money will be gone as well, at which point I can only hope the Lord has appeared and we are living in millennial bliss by that point)(.

To echo what @Traveler stated above, up until recently (and possibly still today in some locations) the Ruler of a Nation and certain individuals under them would be counted as the same individual in some instances. In some Middle Eastern Cultures slavery was common. There were slaves that were your right hand of power and control (probably somewhat like what Joseph was in Egypt). These slaves were seen as basically part of you. They were extensions of your voice and will. Whatever they said was what YOU were saying. To defy them was to defy YOU. When they came, they would be seen as YOU in the flesh and treated as such. For all intents and purposes, unless you were together, they would be seen as you in many instances (obviously NOT YOU, but also because of their position to act in your place, basically as you). In this dynamic we see some classes of slaves as a HIGHER class in society than freemen. This is because the slaves reported directly to the ruler and as such, were held in higher esteem than those who were not part of this slave class. This was most often seen with slaves (as they were owned totally by their master and as such, when loyal, were seen as an extension of that master. A slave could be killed at whim if they disobeyed or did what their master did not desire...whereas a free servant was not so easily done away with), however, on occasion it could also be seen as done with a servant as well. On occasion this is also done with Dynastic rulership where the Son is considered an extension of the ruler. Not entirely the same, but a similar vein could be seen with Young King Henry who was crowned King under his father King Henry II. He was King, but his father had the reins of power. Now, he didn't have as close or as good a relationship as those I spoke of above, but when he was acting in line with his father's wishes, the easiest way for people to talk about them and who they were differently was relating in a way such as one was the king and the other was the young king. (Interestingly enough, as Young King Henry died before his father, he is not counted among the Kingly line of Kings of England).

Forum glitch that caused a double post.

On the OP, I've read recently that the Lord has been offending a LOT of people in the United States. Evangelicals call the Lord "liberal" and weak it is interesting how the world stays the same even as it changes and advances. The same problems during the Lord's ministry exist today and I think that if he were here today the result would be the same, those who profess to worship the Lord and are in the Churches would be some of the first to call for his crucifixion or his death. The Lord was an extremely liberal radical during his time. He called for things that most of the religious individuals at the time were against. He called for forgiving others who offended you, letting your rulers rule over you and keeping your religion separate from that of Caesars. If you accept his apostles also spoke for him, he instituted a type of socialism (called Religious Socialism by many scholars today) where all property was shared amongst those in the church community for the benefit of others. He called for people to feed the poor and care for the sick so that none would be hungry and all would have basic necessities in a society of his. His church called for RIGHTEOUS leaders who were married. He called for faith and common sense. These ideas offended those who were in power. His ideas would tear down the more conservative ideals of the time (where church LEADERS dictated what you could do including how many steps to walk on the Sabbath, etc) which were alarmingly closely aligned to many of the ideas of today. I think people would be surprised at HOW liberal his ideas really are. Even today, his ideas are extremely liberal in relation to what we think in general. In that light, the same type of people (those who were the leaders of the church at the time, those people who followed what those teachers taught) would probably call for his destruction today. (And to be clear, when I refer to leaders of the church I am NOT referring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I am talking about Church leaders in general. These would be those Pastors, Preachers, and others who teach such ideas as hatred of others today, prosperity gospels, those who teach not to help the poor and to try to stop any aid going to them, those who teach that people get what they deserve and that the poor and disabled deserve whatever has happened to them, those who argue to destroy those who don't agree with you, that teach that anger and distrust are what we should do to others because we feel they did it to us, those who teach revenge, and on and on and on in regards to what I see many who claim to be Christian are actually being taught and actually doing these days).

I still do not feel that the picture is one of Joseph Smith Jr. 1. Bone structure DOES NOT MATCH. You can have people tell you one thing, but it is obvious just looking at the brow that the individual is not one of the Smith brothers. The pictured individual has a lower and deeper brow while theirs are shallower and higher. 2. His nose does not match either of their noses either. It is a closer match to Hyrums, but even then the nose is more of a straight than the Smiths which seems to have a crook (One much more obvious than the other) in the mid nose section. Obvious bone structures SHOULD be noted as problematic if one is trying to say it is a picture of the Prophet, but it seems these are being either stated that we cannot see the obvious and were are being gaslighted into trying to be forced to believe that something that looks different is the same, or those doing the analysis really are blind. In that light, Jack Chick's picture is actually more accurate than the photo...ironically...from what I am seeing.

The Temple Questions are more for the one being interviewed than they are for the Bishop or Stake President. When in Leadership it was explained to me that in general (there can be exceptions, but they were just that, exceptions not the general rule), I was to give someone a temple recommend if they answered the questions in a way that agreed with the church...even if I felt something was off. A member can answer the questions however they want and however they feel. They have their free agency. The questions are there for them to affirm not only to the Church leaders, but to themselves, that they feel they are keeping the commandments and covenants they have made and feel worthy to enter the temple. It is the member themselves that have the self introspection to answer how they feel. IF they are honest there may be things that are not truly serious, but that THEY feel are serious and thus for THEM is a personal barrier to temple entry. Other times it allows them to talk about serious sins that are preventing them from advancing spiritually and gives the Church Leader an opportunity to try to help the member overcome these obstacles in their life. Many questions are open to interpretation by the member, even if we may feel they are open and shut. If a member came and said that they were supporting the Boy Scouts and that they felt this was supporting an organization that taught things contrary to the church (people may snort, but I have known those who actually consider this a factor), a bishop may use inspiration on how to help that individual. The member may simply need a clarification, or the member may have a serious consideration and it is for the Church leader to take them seriously. Overall, the temple recommend questions are not something that the Church Leadership is trying to interrogate a member over, it is an interview for the member to self reflect on their own worthiness and to determine in lieu of what is being asked and their own knowledge to honestly answer to the leader AND THEMSELVES on whether they feel they can answer to the affirmative in their support of the Church and the Gospel. In MY OPINION of course.

Catching up to the inflation over the past 4 years. Gold hasn't kept pace with the other areas of inflation (from what I've heard) and at $2150 still hasn't kept up with the rate of inflation throughout the world (despite many conservatives grumbling, Biden actually has managed to keep US inflation as one of the lowest in the world over the past 3 years, the rest of the world has gone bonkers in regards to inflation in some places, reaching over 15 to 20%/year in some areas).

We will have to agree to disagree on this one. In my time over on the opposite side of the World my initial impression was somewhat different than yours. Russia, though corrupt and having different ideas on morality had a pretty strong stance against LGBTQ+ rights and individuality. Ukraine on the otherhand was moving further and further towards full agreement with Western morality. THIS was seen as a great danger by many in Russia and that sphere of the world. It was through Ukraine that many felt this influence on Russia and Russian culture was moving. The idea that Ukraine would get even closer to the West and thus the influence of Western Culture influences into Russia becoming stronger could actually be seen similarly to a Nazi type infiltration of Russia aka WW2 (during which you could see a similar pattern, even to the point that at first Russia wasn't actually opposed to Germany and cooperated with the Nazi's...until it became apparent it was to Russia's detriment). [Edit: It wasn't a perfect analogy, but from the viewpoint of Russia I could actually see how they could see parallels and similarities. Hence, when they used the term Nazi's, they weren't meaning the genocide of Jews Nazi's, but that cultural influence and destruction of Russian people and culture type Nazi ideas. Thus, when you understand that viewpoint, why they referred to Ukraine as Nazi and such makes perfect sense...as in that sense it was the entire cultural and social transformation that was occurring in Ukraine and thus eliminating the Russian culture and ideas that they were referring to. This is one of the big things to go to war against the Nazi's in WW2...it wasn't about the Jews, it was about the preservation of Russia and the Russian culture]. However, for all of Carlson's faults...he did clarify one thing with Putin. The idea above and your idea have NOTHING to do with WHY they want Ukraine. It boils down that Putin (and others) feel that Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union and thus belongs to Russia...no matter what they citizens of Ukraine say, think, or feel. Thus, as Putin so adeptly pointed out in his 30 minute spiel of why Ukraine is Russian Territory and belongs to Russia, it seems the truth is merely that Russia invaded Ukraine because Putin and others feel it is wrong for it to be separate from Russia and they want it back. Thanks Tucker.

I actually read the national review on occasion. Not sure that's a good reason for outrage though. I tend to get more outraged at things from the Daily Beast (or Huffington) than the National Review. Another decent site is military times though it's more focused on things dealing with the military. Off topic but you get gems like this story which could create interesting debates on who is right and who is wrong in the context of the story and/or event. Man who crashed snowmobile into black hawk sues government for 9.5 million

I have heard about the cave with the records. I think there could be MANY explanations. WE have probed the Hill Cumorah and also done sonic and radar on the hill (from what I understand) to show that there is no chamber inside the Hill. Now, I do NOT think we've probed DEEPER (and how deep it could be how far...who knows. It could be a chamber under the hill...thus in the hill...by hundreds if not thousands of meters!). It could ALSO be various other explanations other than a physical location in the Hill Cumorah itself. For example, there is an idea that this Earth is where the Telestial and Celestial Kingdoms are. It is also where the Spirit World is. Some who have this idea also have a belief of something akin to multiple dimensions, where you have several different dimensions occupying the same space at the the same time. Hence, the Spirit world is also here in the same spot, but in a different dimension (or way of existing) than ours. Hence, in that light, there could be a chamber in the Hill Cumorah but you will only be able to see or enter it via spiritual means until we have a higher spiritual existence as it resides in the same location, but a different existence (if that makes sense with what I said above). Another idea is that it is there, but just as the plates (which were in the Hill for hundreds of years and yet no one had discovered them) lay hidden, that the Lord concealed the plates from normal individuals and people...and in this same way the chambers with the other records are also concealed. There are many different ways it COULD work with a chamber or cave being within the Hill Cumorah, but if this is where the records are or how they are concealed for now is obviously not revealed to the general membership of the church.

The CoC SHOULD BE A WARNING about the dangers of trying to go with mainstream Christianity. The Churches that are staying with their more traditional teachings and values are (in general) staying stronger with their membership (though most are also still declining if it is a larger church) than those that have tried to "modernize" and "mainstream" their various religions. I think the Temple in Missouri (theirs) will be one of the last things they would let go, and 190 million will keep them going for a good while at least. Interestingly enough, this is similar to one of the original divisions within the Islamic religion. The question of whether the successor to Mohammad should be his son Ali or a council of others. This caused a division in the religion that has animosity between the both sides from back then during the division to the present day. At least we are not angry and violent towards each other like the divisions of Islam caused.

I think Angles = Angels in the original post above. I remember I saw part of the Cokeville miracle film a few years back. If the film is accurate it spoke of several of the children seeing and identifying relatives that had passed away that the children had not met, but saw during the crisis that they were in.

I have a room booked. I am going to see it. It may be the last chance I have to see it in the US during my life! Really?! I didn't know that. That does raise some interesting thoughts and questions I suppose.

Well, I'm glad I'm not in Texas right now, at least the panhandle considering the smoke and flames going on there.

Well, Pocahontas was very special in Disney's version...she somehow talked to all the plants and trees and such. She probably had some tranquilizer dart effect with her voice which paralyzed MaMa bear there or something. Either that or those shrooms she had were pretty strong to affect both her and John Smith at the same time.

The Funny thing Rashida Tlaib is that if elected, this time Trump is not going to miss his shot at her. If she's lucky she'll still remain a US citizen. He tried banning Muslims and people like her last time. IF she thinks he's going to be nicer to her this time around...ha....hahhahahahahahah. I don't know how she reverses the trend she's pushing for those to not support Biden, but as it stands, if it's down to Biden and Trump...a vote of uncommited is going to be basically a vote for Trump. I think when Trump wins (IF he wins) every Arab American and every Palestinian American are going to be sorely wishing they had done things differently. If they think Biden is bad...they have very short memories. (For example...who do you think moved the embassy...it wasn't Biden...)

I'm not a big fan of Fox News. I read several different sources (though normally start with Yahoo News) and find that they generally are one of the less reliable news sources at times (though they are not at the bottom of the list by far, there are some that are far worse than Fox News, there are also some that are Better. I generally prefer AP and Reuters more for example). This is an instance where I completely agree with Fox News and their support of their reporter. I am against Chen being able to force the News Caster to reveal her sources, and from what it appears, as the argument is not that the article is incorrect, but rather that they are pushing for sources...it would seem to me that Chen may actually be ADMITTING that the article is actually correct on all counts in many ways...at least that's how I would read it. Judge holds veteran journalist Catherine Herridge in contempt for refusing to reveal her sources Here's at least one of the articles that they are wanting sources for DoD-funded school at center of federal probes over suspected Chinese military ties Of interest ON sources...this is telling... The actual APA page on Yanping Chen Yanping Chen The relavent RCFP page The privacy act and media leaks Seeing it is taking the slant more of a civilian case I'd say that Zerilli v. Smith HOLDS precedence even more strongly on this than other cases and as such, the judge is in the wrong here. I also think it is suspicious in regards to Chen and their connection and proximity to the US government considering her past and the allegiances and oaths Chinese military officers (not just enlisted...MILITARY OFFICER) need to make to China when inducted into their military. Even if she is completely innocent, keeping a decent arms length away from Chen probably would be wise...IN MY OWN estimation...for US services and government applications.

Pray and choose the best one according to your conscience. To me, Trump is apologetically a liar, thief and adulterer. If nothing else, Joe Biden goes to church, has not committed adultery as far as we know, and loves his family. That's not to say Joe Biden is a great or perfect person, he's not. There are many that are much more moral and righteous than he is, but of the two, he seems to me to be the more righteous individual. It has nothing to do with the policies in this, just pointing out that this is one factor behind my decision of who I'll probably vote for. The other is that there are comments from Trump that sound scarily like what Hitler said before he seized power and some of the things Trump has inferred sound scarily as if he would do away with democracy and other items if he could. Whenever he says something he points a finger, but three fingers are pointing back at him and normally that's because what he is accusing others of is what he WANTS to do or has tried to do (In my opinion). From what I've read and seen, that's untrue. An example of what Trump really feels about Ukraine probably can be seen from the first attempt to Impeach him (individuals call it an impeachment, but only the house called the impeachment, but as he was not convicted by the Senate and acquitted, he wasn't really impeached IMO). He attempted to withhold aid from the Ukraine for his own personal gain (a futile attempt as the President doesn't hold the purse strings in the way he was trying, Congress does, so it really doesn't make sense that he could be charged under that idea as he didn't have the power to do so in the first place...once again...IMO). I think Ukraine would be under Russian control today if Trump had been President at the time of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. His initial response to the Russian invasion before his people got him to backtrack says it all to me... That's my personal opinion. Trump didn't seem to show much spine when he was talking with Putin and Putin seemed to almost always have the upper hand with Trump...almost as if Putin had something over Trump. That said...my vote will be for Biden if it is between those two most likely...BUT for many who vote that way I expect it's not going to be so much that they are voting for Biden or support him, but that the are voting against Trump. I honestly think that if the Republicans were being honest with themselves, they'd realize Nikki Haley has a much better chance of winning against Biden than Trump simply for that factor alone. Many will swallow their dislike of democrats just to vote against Trump, but that sentiment isn't there if Haley was running.

So, I still am not buying the picture is the same as Joseph. For starters, the parts which would NOT change do not match. For example, the brows and brow line, whether reveresed or not...do not match. The bones that marcate the brow do not change in death. The BIGGER mark though is that the entire theory seems to rely on the fact that Emma misidentified what her own husband looked like and called for paintings and pictures of him that did not look like her husband. That's the part I think I find the hardest to believe out of what they are saying.

I'd agree with voters showing up to vote with ID (come on folks, it's not THAT hard to get an ID, it takes TIME though), with the caveat...they NEED to open more voting places if they want everyone to vote in person...INCLUDING the areas that do not lean towards your party (there's been a move in some states to get rid of voting locations in large urban areas....and try to restrict how many can vote in those urban areas). Also, make it so that an employer can be FINED if they try to make it so that their employees do not have time to vote...OR try to mandate (same with unions) or force their employees to vote a specific or certain way. Ensure every US citizen who has the right to vote has the opportunity to vote...and I'm right there with you in saying that making sure those who vote have identification and show up in person at the polls is the right thing to do.

Okay, reading various news feeds and stumble across this on Yahoo News. Jack Posbiec calls for the end of Democracy at CPAC WHAT IN THE WORLD IS THIS!!!! I immediately tried to find a conservative slant or report on this as I can't believe this story has the entire context of what was being said. If it is...what in the world!!!??? Certainly there had to be an uproar in the audience shouting down such a statement? I can't believe ANYONE in US politics would say something like this and get away with it!? Something is seriously wrong with the party if they are having speakers that are allowed to say such things without a TON of pushback and then proclamations against such statements if the article states it in context (I can't believe it is saying all there is, there HAS to be more context to this type of statement than what the article shows...I can't find it though...hopefully someone here can find it where it doesn't sound as bad as it is made out to sound in the article).

Ironically, Biden (left of the Reagan Republicans, but still probably one of the more moderate Democrats today) has that same problem. We see him called a far left liberal by one side, and yet his own people are unhappy with him due to him being far too conservative for them. Haley is probably right on some things. I don't know who would win today between Trump and Biden, but I think Haley would have a far better chance to win over independents if she actually got the nomination.

Which is why I always claim to be a far left looney liberal here on these forums. In real life I have normally been considered somewhat conservative (even if I am officially an independent). I suppose you could call me a Reagan Republican/Conservative in some ways. But, compared to those who are on the Far right I'm as loony left as anyone else, including those on the Far left...or at least that's what those on the Far Right probably consider me as. In truth, today, I'm probably more moderate, and probably center right as far as political leanings are concerned, but in relation to the things expressed on these forums at times...I'm the enemy of everything Conservative as far as I can see of my reputation. I actually prefer Biden to Trump. Biden is actually pretty moderate all things considered and is the best that the Democrats probably can offer in that regards these days. That's also why he stood a chance against Trump. It's not that he's liberal or conservative, but that he appealed more to the middle last election than Trump did. We will see if that is still the case of if Trump (or someone else, who knows, strange things can happen) gets elected. I don't actualy see Trump as left or right (though ironically the right sees him as conservative). He's more looney and in it for himself than anything else I think. He has conservatives that surround him and thus why many of the policies he had were conservative (because those conservative republicans were the ones enacting them), but he, himself...he has switched back and forth between parties and opinions. He just works for whoever he thinks will get the most for him, himself, and his own.