JohnsonJones

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.

I think it depends on how much People are looking at what Republicans are doing vs. common sense. The Republicans are trying to impeach Biden and cause trouble for his son...and one of their star witnesses and who they relied on for a LOT of their information was just revealed to be a Russian stooge (and possibly spy/agent to cause disruption and chaos). The Republicans say they want to stop what's happening at the Border but then vote against the strongest border bill in decades, one they helped craft even!!! And then go on to have a House impeachment of someone else saying he isn't enforcing the Border...well...you bunch of fools...the same could be said of YOU!!! They have talked a LOT about the budget and cutting spending...but one of the BIG reasons we are in this mess is because those tax changes you made under Trump (which are expiring for the Middle Class in many ways, but NOT those who actually help PAY a LOT of the Taxes previously) are causing us to have a smaller amount of money and go deeper in DEBT! How about actually putting your actions where your mouth is, undo those tax cuts for the wealthy and in general and get a sensible monetary policy (that most others do) where you actually need to have an INCOME to pay the bills, rather than constantly trying to cut your income and then blame someone else for all the bills?? I'm probably a conservative leaning independent, and in the past I've loved some of the Republican lawmakers, but I'm about sick of the clown show they've been running in the House. They are chasing away a lot of moderate who are now choosing to retire rather than re-run for election. They are making those left even less desired as those I would like in office. I don't know who will win or won't win, but I say let's be done with the conspiracy theories and just kick out the Do NOTHING Republicans who hypocritically say one thing and do the exact opposite (for example, the border...let's be realistic...that bill was the BEST bill they could have hoped for since they don't fully control their OWN HOUSE because they are split and they don't control the Senate...a vote against it was a vote for do nothing because anything THEY come up with that is stronger won't stand a chance of passing and THEY KNOW IT).

Not lost scripture or revelations, but there are some biblical revelations on the matter Isaiah 29: 9-14 (and more if you read through the end of the chapter). Ezekiel 37:15-19

We may have to reorganize the wards in our stake. While I think we have 20 priesthood holders in each ward that fulfill the requirements, I'm not sure each ward currently has 250 members in it. Last time I looked at our roll I think our ward had sub-200 members which I found...interesting.

Not a doctor, so obviously this is NOT from a medical perspective or a professional's perspective on the matter. Regarding Humans... From my little understanding, in THEORY it is possible. It has never happened. If one was born with a FULL set of Gonads and the chemical makeup was just right...it MAY be possible. There may need to be some medical work to make it possible (IVF). Normally only one full set of gonads are there with another incomplete set. Even then, with a complete set the estrogen or testosterone being produced could be too much for a chemical balance of the individual for a fertilized cell to survive. So, in theory...possible. In reality...has not happened (that we know of) yet, and hasn't seemed viable in those we know of. Even if it is possible, the question is if it doesn't occur naturally (needs medical intervention to occur), should we allow such a thing. We already have laws against incest for a reason. This would probably be several times worse than incest in regards to a genetic result and their medical difficulties.

I don't deal with recruiting or with a bunch of young fellows (or ladies") who are jumping over themselves to join the military today so I don't know the exact reasons why some of them join, but I HAVE heard that in today's environment, the Military actually pays exceptionally well for those who graduate with degrees, and even for those who join out of high school IF they finish their technical training and stay on track to be promoted on the regular by the time they graduate that training. As pay goes up in relation to inflation, it's kept track of pay increases much better than most jobs in the civilian world. That said, there also seems to be a thought among some of the young people I teach that serving in the military is a thing of last resort when one cannot do otherwise. This, of course, is not shared by those I know who are currently serving in the guard or reserves as they go to school (and more rarely, the ones who have already served [more rarely because they are rarer to come across], though sometimes their opinions vary on the matter) who seem to do it to help them get through school and have it paid for. (And if I may, this is ALSO a reason to try to go to a school with in-state tuition. With some of the tuition fees today, if you are out of state you would still need far more money to pay tuition and fees, whereas in-state you could probably afford the entire thing on the G.I. Bill). I don't know about the military currently, but in civilian life it can sometimes be harder than that. There is a MINIMUM Quota for them to meet. If they have less then the minimum then they need to recruit more woman (or minorities) of sorts, but if they have exceeded that there is no requirement to get to a specific percentage. They can keep hiring woman and minorities at the expense of the White Male. There is no set percentage for White Males in general, so if you only have woman and minorities and no White males then you are good in the eyes of those who wish to have those percentages. This is also no representative of the population. This is because they associate white men with what they call the white male privilege. This can make it harder for some to gain employment. On the otherhand, I see where they are coming from. Even at our university we have a greater portion of the professors as White men. There is something to the idea that white men still have an upper hand at attaining certain things in our western society. This doesn't mean that EVERY white male will ALWAYS be seen as superior to other social groups, or that even most white men will be able to reach unprecedented heights of wealth and power. it merely means that all things being equal, that if you have to equal candidates, that those who are white will be given the better opportunity. If you have a white man from poverty and a minority from middle class, it would still mean that minority from middle class probably will have a better opportunity than the other. BUT in general, if they are both from an equal point, than the white man will still, in general, have a better outcome in equal situations. I can see this reflected in our various positions at the University, and as you get higher in the ranks/promotions you see it more starkly. The Deans and members of the University boards tend to have more white men than anyone else. I think that woman and minorities would probably enjoy the pay and leadership opportunities just as much as others in these instances, but with how society works, in general they tend to be less represented the higher in position you go. Sure, we have one woman on the university board (out of many positions), but that is one in relation to many. So, CURRENTLY I tend to agree with the idea that there is an idea of privilege in our society and that something probably should be done to equalize things out (which means I CAN be persuaded to think differently on it if one has a persuasive enough argument), but I also agree that sometimes it seems a bit unfair on how we try to do it.

Hmmm. Sometimes, just because you CAN DO A THING, does not mean you SHOULD DO A THING.

This sounds like it would be hearsay (I heard it from someone else who heard it from the witness). I'd say if you are truly still concerned, tell the Mission President as @laronius mentioned above and let him handle it from there.

In another thread there was a post about the necessity of each member of the Godhead. In it, there was a thought that all three were needed as the task each had to do would not be able to be accomplished (necessarily) by the others. In this, someone asked if this means that they are suggesting that the power of the Father in the trio is limited. That's a good question. In the Bible it never says that The Father or the Son are Omnipotent (and it does not say they are Omniscient or Omnipresent either). It does state that they are Almighty. What does this mean? Does it mean or imply that they are Omnipotent? Many times it comes from the Term El Shaddai...which when they translated it into Greek was Almighty...but that word doesn't mean Almighty in hebrew. It means the Breasted one, or could also mean the Mountain or the Sufficient one. Other verses carry the implication that he has great power, that he is able to do things because HE IS (or I...or I AM). He is power. It can also mean that he is the mightiest of them all, but not necessarily Omnipotent. We know as a fact that he actually has chosen to limit himself in his power and what he can do. He has given us our free agency, which in turn means that he does use his power to control what we choose. We have the freedom to choose for ourselves. Thus the old question, could he make a rock he could not lift...and thereby making it so he was no longer Omnipotent? The answer could be...yes...he chooses to limit his Omnipotency in order to allow certain things to be able to happen (like us being given the freedom to choose for ourselves and make our own choice). It could also be, if we read the King Follet discourse and believe in it, that though he is the Mightiest of them all as far as we are concerned, he also has a Father and rules which he also must obey or pay heed to. Thus, he also has laws and rules which let him do things, and perhaps also limit what he might be able to do. For example, we read that he does not allow any with any stain of sin into his presence. This is something he does not allow. This is a limitation on him, then, that would require someone who CAN have those who have sinned be recognized and reconciled before him, so that they can be cleansed and be presented before the Father in a sinless state. This would be the Savior's role to take upon him our sins. The Holy Ghost also has a role in this and also helping us and teaching us (as well as comfort). So, I suppose it's a good question...is the Father Omnipotent? Is that any different than Almighty? Does it really matter as far as we are concerned?

That is known as the Star of Abraham. It is used a lot in Islamic construction and symbolism. Ibrahim or Abraham is one of their most Holy Prophets. Not only was he the father of Ishmael, but he also supposedly purged the world of idolatry and showed them the correct way to worship. He also built the Kabbalah (sp?) and was the Holy Prophet of his time. Some Hypothesize that Israel anciently may have also used this symbol originally. Of interest, it would be then that both groups who claim to be descended from Abraham may have used this symbol As for it being the Seal of the Melchizedek Priesthood...I don't know. The Islamic religions do not make that claim as far as I know and neither do the Jewish religions or scholars that have the hypothesis about it's prior usage in the region. If I had to hazard a guess, IF IT IS the Seal of the Melchizedek Priesthood it is due to Abraham. He received the Melchizedek Priesthood most likely from the Priest of Salem, or Melchizedek. In this it could be that this symbol was originally used BY Melchizedek and as Abraham became the rightful heir of that lineage and it's blessings, which in turn blesses the entire earth as we also must trace our lineages back to him, it also became his symbol. Hence, this symbol not only would be the Star of Abraham, but also a symbol tracing it's heritage to Shem and then to Noah and from there to Adam eventually. That's just a wild guess on my part though. The Star of Abraham is a well known Islamic symbol used prolifically today. I'm not sure why it doesn't show up on Google searches or other things (I did a quick check so I could post some references for everyone, but I couldn't find one on the internet via google...which is surprising to me. It is such a well known symbol in the Middle East and it's symbology I am surprised that it isn't something that is easily found via google).

Take the idea of if you were not a member, what would you do? If it is something that you would normally report to the police or a lawyer, then you probably should report it to the police or authorities. If it is not, then probably keep out of it. Same would apply to whoever you would report it to. Simply being a member does not grant any special immunity or rights beyond other citizens as far as I know. At the point that the authorities are made aware of something, and you have said all you know, than it becomes something between the lawyers, authorities, and the mission president. He is the one that probably would be who decides whether missionaries get involved or not. Missionaries get tickets, they have car accidents, and unfortunately, sometimes have legal matters. The individual who presides over the mission and thus the missionaries is the one who gets to decide how to handle these matters. Of more interest is how you KNOW the missionaries were actually witnesses to an event or not? Were you also a witness? In that case, it would probably be easier if you just told them what you saw and who was present. If you are not a witness a question would arise how you would know who was or was not present? Is it hearsay? Is it Gossip? Both are not good reasons to try to get involved (in my opinion). Unless you are positively absolute about the information you wish to give out, you probably should think harder about whether to give it out or not. If you are a witness in some way to the event though, you should probably tell them what YOU saw and heard and let the lawyer or authorities take it from there.

Shouldn't there be 12 stars then...or are there (I have not counted the number of stars on the SLC temple). One Star for each of the tribes of Israel?

I don't think I can have any empathy for you getting speeding tickets in this case. If you can't slow down by 10 miles between Texas and Minnesota...well.... 🤓 PS: Can't understand why you'd make such a wide detour going from Texas to Utah, but I suppose that explains why you wanted to speed. Even going 120 MPH would make it a longer trip than going direct. PPS: Yes...if one cannot tell by now, this is a humor post.

That is actually interesting to hear. The push FELT like they wanted a certain type of slant. In fact, it felt like if you were supposed to write one that suggested that Trump could be taken off the ballot. I obviously (as seen from my post above) object to that line of reasoning. That said, I have not read them. I know my post above would be poorly accepted (not formatted right, and everything I stated is based on appearances, feelings and opinion which normally are not acceptable in these types of briefs...so not acceptable at all) but I felt like screaming in the wind about it. The Court (in my opinion) prefers facts and precedence. I haven't read the briefs though so I am unsure how they present such things.

Oops...yep.

I paid $1.50/gallon yesterday. That was with some of it off (cheaper than normal), but it was quite inexpensive for me. Bread was around $2.50 a loaf. A Dozen eggs is under $3. A gallon of milk is around $2.49 so not terrible. California on the otherhand was running around $4.70 a gallon which is a massive difference of costs.

I came today to write on a very similar subject. This deals with the case of taking Trump off the Ballet in Colorado and possibly in other locations. There has been a push from a few directions for individuals with Doctorates in certain areas to write briefs to the Supreme Court. These briefs take the slant that Trump can be taken off the Ballot for the election of President. I did not write one and I did not send a brief. I understand several dozen have been sent to the Supreme Court. Now, it is NO SECRET on these forums that I am not a fan of Trump. I think it should be clear then that I feel these moves are absolutely politically slanted. I DO NOT know who sent all the briefs, but I expect a majority to be those who would already be opposed to Trump more strongly than I am, not due to what he has supposedly done with any insurrection, but simply due to his other actions. I do not support the idea that Trump committed an insurrection. I'd prefer the election to be open and Trump, at least currently, be allowed on the Ballots. I do not like him, nor his politics, but I think he has not had a conviction which bars him from the ballot yet. I feel he could be a threat to the Constitution, the Republic, and any democratic elections in the future if he gains power, but that does NOT warrant (In MY OPINION) for him to be barred. Fear is NOT a reason to take away rights. I DO not feel Trump committed an insurrection on January 6th for the following reasons. 1. I do not feel Trump is mentally sound enough to actually plan something like an insurrection. Trump basically says whatever is on his mind at the moment he is talking. It could be a lie, it could be the truth, but whatever he is currently thinking about, he blurts out. IN that, you can take him as remarkably up front with his thoughts, or remarkably profuse in lying half the time. He doesn't seem the have the forethought to actually recognize what he says and how he says it may affect him in the future. The greatest example of this yet was his behavior towards a trial which he was fined over 80 million dollars recently. If he had any forethought at all, this was a penalty he should have EASILY been able to avoid. Now he has smart people around him that can plan and think these things up, but Trump...in my opinion, it's beyond his ability to do something like this. It would mean he had to be able to plan in detail, and then plant certain individuals, and then without others noticing and not mentioning it, move these individuals into place in order to actually try to overthrow the US government. I do not feel he exhibited this ability nor has this ability. Perhaps others on his staff, but I don't think Trump would understand exactly what they were doing even if he wanted to. 2. He hasn't even been CHARGED with insurrection. If it was so clear cut, there should be charges regarding this directly. 3. You all saw the videos of January 6th. Did this appear to be a group of militant individuals that were performing a precisely organized military attack? It did not appear that way to me. I saw several things. a. It appeared that most of them didn't know WHAT they were doing. They joined in on a mob. When they actually got into the Capital they acted more like confused tourists that were going around with the freedom to do as they wanted. They acted more like people who were in a grocery store they were visiting than a focused group intent on taking over the government. b. I've seen videos from the BLM riots, and I've seen January 6th and they appear very similar. The difference was who were there involved with the riots. Some of the BLM riots were more destructive than the one on January 6th (though not towards government buildings generally). If the BLM riots were just riots, I would think that this was more likely a riot in general than an attempted insurrection. c. Yes, I think there were a few there that had a strategy to do some very nefarious things to members of government. I think it was an extremely small segment of individuals who were planning these things out. They had a hand in creating the mob and directing it. I think they were not one united group, but several groups. They composed less then 1% of the mob. They had some very horrible things they planned to do and we are lucky they didn't get to do them. I do not think that they would have overthrown the government even if they were successful. They could have caused some serious damage, but not overthrown the government. d. I think Trump was delighted that there were people who so fervently supported him, but I do not think he realized that it would be perceived that he was pushing them to cause an insurrection. I don't think the thought actually even entered his mind. I think he was trying to OVERTURN an election, but I don't think he realized it would be seen by some as an insurrection. With the exception of the few mentioned in part c, I highly doubt most of the mob that were rioting even had the thought that they could be seen as being part of an insurrection. I think the thought of that would have horrified most of them. Most of them probably thought they were patriotic and being highly loyal to their nation. 4. I do not think if they were successful they would have actually overthrown the US government and succeeded. I don't think that was most of their intent, nor do I think that was Trump's intent. He didn't want to kill everyone in Congress. That wouldn't have done him any good. I think he wanted people to protest the validation of the electoral votes, but not to actually go and kill the very people who would have to make the decision whether to validate or not. He wanted Congress to make a decision that would be favorable to him, not to destroy Congress so no decision could be made that day at all. IN ending, I do not support the idea that Trump should be tossed off the ballot due to fomenting an insurrection. It's a nonsense thing that if we accept that states can just toss off a presidential candidate because they feel like he broke a certain rule or not, it could cause a dangerous precedence in the future where states can accuse anyone they do not like of causing an insurrection or other item to disqualify a candidate someone does not like. I still do NOT support Trump. I still am not going to vote for him at this time. However, if Trump is to be defeated, let it be via a legal way rather than trying to create ways that could cause a serious problem in the future (In MY OPINION). PS: I feel Abbott in Texas is closer to an insurrection than Trump ever was. If I were Biden I'd push the issue. Nationalize the Texas national Guard along with any other states whose guard members are there. Then tell them to take down the barriers. Those who refuse to obey are court martialed. If the Texas Governor orders his Texas State Guard (different than the Texas National Guard, State guard are ONLY answerable to the Governor) and police to fight against these nationalized troops, THEN he really IS basically forming an insurrection. He's already coming somewhat close to it in refusing to obey the Supreme Court and the US Federal Government, but he hasn't actually started or gotten involved in fighting against them...YET. That's FAR more concerning in my opinion in regards to what COULD cause an insurrection than what Trump did on January 6th.

Personal thoughts.. I do not know personally what initiated it, but I have my suspicions it started to come to light when Joseph Smith was receiving revelation in translating the Bible (Old Testament) as well as when he was having revelatory inspiration in regards to his translation of scrolls which led to the Book of Abraham. Though the Church has an ESSAY (Which I may remind people, is actually not written by General Authorities and is normally from people like yours truly and others who study out the item, it is/was then approved for posting on the site and thus is actually NOT doctrine, nor even policy per se, but informational for your growth and knowledge), the actual doctrines of the church on the issue is not so clear cut. The Pearl of Great Price on which passages the ideas of Brigham Young (and even Joseph Smith's though we do not focus so much on his later ideas on this) support this idea of a curse were NOT doctrine or scripture at the time, but the prophet would have been well aware of them and this is why I feel his thoughts first pondered on these and received revelation accordingly. These passages became scripture (and thus doctrine) later, and are STILL considered officially scripture and Doctrine today in the Pearl of Great Price. They are scriptures which some find hard and cause some to stumble due to the pride they have in putting modern values over revelation and scripture.

If I understand you correctly, this is exactly how it happened. The Priesthood had the chance to be offered to all those who would be part of the groups to be offered it first, and after that had been fulfilled, the priesthood was opened to others. Of interest, this could also be seen in lieu of another item Brigham Young had instituted (but I won't go into detail of all the areas of which this was discussed or pursued due to the location and wording of it) where he had Saints pledge the Lord's vengeance on those who murdered the prophet up to the third and fourth generations. That would have ALSO been fulfilled (And thus ended as anything that was remarked about it) around the same time and should have been done away with (as it was) in the ensuing years (I believe up until the beginning of the 90s?? decades sometimes meld together) along with other items in reference to it. I'll read the rest of the thread to see if anyone says anything that sways me differently though.

Does that mean you are currently sleeping? It's already in the afternoon where I'm at. What time do you normally wake up at? (The above is a JOKE...please accept it as that and nothing more).

There is something I tell individuals (not that it helps, but I try) in situations similar to these. Sometimes you need to have a testimony of the gospel, but not necessarily the church. What I mean, is the church in this would mean the leaders and individuals who are in it. Leaders and individuals are flawed and still human. The gospel is our path to exaltation. I have heard someone say, for a church that teaches all about eternal families, it's not that family focused. Many wards, instead of trying to involve families try to EXCLUDE families. Thus, instead of inviting all father's to come with sons on camps, and mothers to come with daughters to camps, they try to exclude parents from their children. Instead of allowing parents to be involved with the children's religious education at church, they exclude them. They send parents one way, and try to send kids another. In today's society (this is even more true in the East, meaning parts of Asia), organizations that do NOT explicitly have instructions to include parents when having youth organizations are inherently mistrusted. This is a problem that is also occurring in the public school system in the United States in some areas (and why parents are having real troubles with public education at times). Some parents choose to take children out of school because of things such as this. In an ideal world we would have it explicitly stated in the Handbook of instructions that parents can be involved with their children in church in all situations. This would also help safeguard the church against lawsuits to a greater degree than it has now (though it may also open it up to lawsuits as well, but probably to a LESSER degree than it is open to them in it's current handling of youth and children. I expect in one or two decades the church is going to have a situation similar to what the BSA just went though with abuses and lawsuits en masse). When I was a church leader I invited parents to be involved with whatever their children were doing regardless of calling. I am no longer a leader, but I have seen a similar openness in our area currently (at least for now). It can be difficult when a ward or stake is not as open to allowing parents to oversee their children. I would say to stand firm and make it known that your children are YOUR children, not theirs. Be strict and stand your ground. I know it is hard, but I would invite you to go and attend church again. Even if it is only for sacrament, renewing our covenants is a special and important part of our lives. When you stop attending the church, even if your own testimony is strong, it can lead your children down other paths. The church is a vessel that carries the covenants of salvation and exaltation. Many of us hope that our children will go to the Celestial Kingdom with us and their families will also be there (and so on and so forth). This is made possible through the covenants that are only available through the Church itself. This is the reason to attend and to inspire our children to at least obtain these covenants. That said, be firm and stick with your children. If you need to attend their classes, attend their classes and activities. Remind those in charge that it is YOUR children, not theirs, and YOU are there to make sure abuses do NOT occur. That they have done NOTHING to build your trust in them, and until they do, and you trust them, you will KEEP on sticking with your children. If you cannot attend youth classes and activities, then at least go to sacrament. I know it can be hard in today's church at times. I am an imperfect individual and I know there are those who probably have serious problems with me as well. When I was a Church leader there were probably those who disliked things I did. That is okay. I know I am imperfect and they shouldn't follow me. They should follow the Lord and his gospel. That's what it's all about in the end I think, following the Lord and keeping his commandments.

I've seen it. I'd give examples of it, but I don't think it would be very faith promoting or useful to do so in this thread currently. However, I've seen this and similar items be an issue in the past decade with several members. It could be something that could be discussed in another thread, but I don't think it will help anything to talk about it in depth in this thread, at least from me.

Before I being, I will point out that there is a great deal of sarcasm to follow... 1. Germany is NOT the U.S., though many want to think it's the same. That said, you have a strange idea of what makes one lower class. For example, I know of an individual who's father was only a Lowly shoe salesman. How could such an individual with a father who struggles to sell shoes from such as small shop be from anything other than a lower class. I mean...adidas is such a SMALL company in the world! You used the Second Chancellor as an example. This business was big enough to have executives and branches, but yet, as per you, was just a lowly store (much like adidas is a lowly shoe selling place). If it WASN'T for his father and the situation of such, he probably would have had more problems being an "unemployed" academic for 3 years (at which time he also was, in theory also an executive in his father's company). Such a destitute and poor world it was, such a lowly class of poverty and struggle there. Kiesinger is a bit of a different duck as he gained his "privilege" before World War 2 and the changes to Germany (among which is where it became East and West Germany. It does not appear he was starving during the Wiemar Republic). He DID get the privileges of being a Nazi (and all that this entailed in gains above those who were not part of the Nazi party) early on. He became a Nazi in 1933. This was prior to him even graduating with a degree in Law. Such a terrible lowly thing to have everything provided when people were starving in Germany in the late 1920s. Surely that shows how far down on the totem pole he was in class. Then, to go to College and be a Nazi where he had to watch those in higher classes gain such great things such as losing all their property, being sent to camps and such while he had to suffer by seeing others in his class get their stuff! Then, with such terrible connections he avoided being conscripted to arms in the War during 1940 because he was able to obtain a position in broadcasting where, because he had such horrendous opportunities he became deputy head of the department and liason to the department of Propaganda. Luckily, his loyalty to Hitler and high position in the Nazi party during those times gave him no advantages, if I understand what you wrote correctly? I DO find it interesting you chose to highlight him (the third chancellor) as he is considered HIGHLY controversial at times (which I've hinted at strongly, but won't go into detail as that is a MUCH LONGER discussion) as an example of one who had low privileges. I would actually have thought that it was due to his ability to divorce himself from what he did in his past and justify how he actually avoided supporting the Nazi's (despite close ties to the Office of Propaganda) as well as the close connections he had to certain individuals of the time is a prime example of how one in a certain social status can use those advantages to their ability to obtain power...but...as long as we are being sarcastic on these things... Such a hard struggle coming from such a place! 2. Germany has a great social mobility in some areas. I would not refute the idea that Uchtdorf had lowly origins in regards to what we see in the United States. One reason he is a member is due to his grandmother standing in line to try to get food after World War 2. When one struggles with poverty, it is impossible to be part of anything but lower class. I know a prime example that comes from our United States history. It's a PRIME example of how poverty forces one to remain in the lower class and never grants any privileges to their children. This person was in the United States as an Irish Catholic. At this time there was a massive amount of prejudice and discrimination against Irish Catholics. In the early 1900s this individual worked hard and managed to get into Harvard, only to find out that discrimination there was alive and well. A little depressed at how classism worked he swore that he would become a successful businessman and show the others that he could succeed. He swore he would make a million dollars (being 20-30 million in today's dollars) by the time he was in his mid 30s. This wasn't helped that he ended up having 9 children which he also had to try to support. However, luck struck and his father started to have success in local politics, with many of the Irish Catholics in the surrounding area also supporting their rise to power. Joseph actually succeeded in his goals despite these challenges and even better, massively exceeded them. One of his children, Jack, was raised during this time period but suffered dearly. Because of the time and the situation, this son was regularly sick having measles, whooping cough, and then...what was at the time deadly...scarlet fever. The young boy survived and grew with the family. This boy would grow up to show that no matter what the prejudice, one can gain positions and power. This young boy's name...John F. Kennedy. So you see, this is an example that one who has a family that struggles at some point can never have any privilege at all. John F. Kennedy became President without any connections, help, or advantages because, as you put it, once in poverty...always in poverty???? Now, as seen, Germany is NOT the United States. However, I would expect someone who was a Vice President in an Airlines would have no privilege and, despite making a LARGE amount of money, also still be in poverty and in the lower class in Germany...if I understand what you are phrasing and how you are phrasing it? 3. I have had a LOT of sarcasm in my above posts. On this point, I'm not going to use any sarcasm. I've tried to offer the opposite view you presented in the points above to show an alternate take on the same thoughts. This is one I just can't do it. I don't have the spirit. I can't malign Uchtdorf just to make a point. That's just too far from how I feel that I just can't do it on this point. Elder Uchtdorf was a brilliant pilot. He worked hard. Whether he had advantages in getting there or not, it was ultimately his hardwork and talent that enabled him to become the head of his class in the military and gain better positions at Lufthansa. He has been part of the Upper class in Germany for many decades. That said, I have often felt that he has great empathy for others including those who are poor and destitute. He has great sympathies for those who are disabled and suffering. He is a wonderful person and I can't reduce my own opinions of the man to squabble about such a thing. The general point I think was representation. It was how people and members in the Church feel represented. I think I already posted a view of this in the 12th post of the first page of this topic in my "Counter" and how this actually is. The apostles are divinely approved and are divinely appointed to lead our church through revelation and the Lord's guidance So, though I will still stand by the point that Germany is NOT the United States (and Brazil is not either), and both have different systems and ways of evaluating class, position, and other hierarchical ideas, I have already presented that I think our General Authorities and Church leaders are Led by the Lord and it is the Lord who leads our church.

No, of course not, but I find it par for the course. The same commentary going on here about BYU is probably valid in triplicate towards the U. Of course, what is said about the U is probably valid a dozen times more towards other universities. HOWEVER, on the final portion of my post, in regards to football...yes...I admit...I hold BYU and the U in low regard. That's sports though, not the university or the education they provide. That said, BYU is normally known nationwide more for football then other things. After that, occasionally it's also known for being "Mormon, but IRONICALLY...outside of Utah and Utah influenced areas, the U is ALSO known for being "Mormon" so it all sort of balances out. I have no hard feelings towards any of them, and most of my above post was said in jest or poking lite fun with no hostile intent. This is why I brought up football, because in the eyes of the SEC...both BYU and the U are equal in their eyes. The BYU/UofU rivalry is sort of like two kittens going at each other. In the eyes of a Bulldog...kittens going at each other is cute but no real challenge there. Of course you surprise me sometimes, but probably not on this one. More seriously, both are decent universities. BYU is a well respected university and has many of the top 100 colleges in the Nation (for things such as accounting and Law for example). The University of Utah is also very renowned and is famous for it's Hospital and medical connections the world over. As for Religion professors teaching things about the Book of Mormon at BYU, I have no control over that. I imagine that if they are teaching this at BYU this is actually on a SYMPTOM of something far bigger and pervasive going on in the CES system of the Church which would also translate that it's probably also happening on other campuses at their institutes of religion or elsewhere (which would also include the U's institute of religion which if I recall, either that or the Aggies at Utah State have the biggest institutes in the nation). It would be interesting to see which professors at BYU are actually promoting this idea, but I would also think that an investigation of how widespread it is among the Institute and CES system it is or has spread would be necessary at the same time. Another thought I had is if this is actually something that's being promoted at BYU and the CES system...this could spell a change in the church's approach to things. IF it IS an officially endorsed and promoted item from Church leadership itself to the religion professors...this could be a precursor. What would people's opinions be if this is actually NOT something that is coming from the Professors themselves, but something they have been INSTRUCTED to teach from higher Church leadership, and is a precursor of an official stance that the Church may be preparing to take in the future? (and as an aside, this is similar to a stance the the CoC took decades ago and has been being pushed towards Church Leadership for awhile. It is NOT something I support, but I've seen this push to have this type of teaching and stance towards the Book of Mormon take place in our Church as well. I do not approve of this idea, but I don't know what my reaction would be if the Prophet himself decided that this is the Church's stance from now on, except that Utah culture [where I have seen this come from most often and where a LOT of the more liberal ideas which have changed the church recently have come from] is alive and strong in it's influence on Church policies still).

Several thoughts are brought to mind on reading your post. Part I I recently read an article on Climate change about how the oceans are rising and destroying a village in Mexico. It was pointed out in the comments that if you look at the coastline beyond that village, you will notice that the ocean hasn't actually risen at all. That the village itself only came about around 40 years ago. That the reasons why there wasn't one previously were due to the exact reasons the village had suffered as per what the article posted...AND...even with that, most of the buildings were still standing and NOT damaged. I feel Climate Change is occurring and that there is a Human factor that is involved with causing it to accelerate. I also think that there is a awful lot of alarmist statements and articles that exaggerate how it has affected the world thus far. This way of doing things only diminishes how believable the actual claims of Climate Change are. When someone reads one of these articles and then finds out that it's basically full of lies, they are apt to discount ALL of the Science behind Climate Change. These types of articles do more of a disservice than to help with anything, but these people pushing them and whatever agenda they have do not seem to understand they are doing more harm than good. However, it IS affecting our youth and it is part of what they catalogue on their issues that are ongoing in the world. I would be remiss if I ignored that many of my university students have these concerns. It adds to the general malaise many of them feel towards the world and it's future. I think there are many types of articles and influences like this today which make many of our students and young people give up hope about the future. Someone without hope for the future is less likely to invest in a future...which also includes having a family. Part II The bigger concern I've seen in regards to family and children recently has to do with money and the financial situation in the West. Housing is becoming unaffordable. If a young person cannot afford a home, they are much less likely to start a family. Many young people today look at the prices of housing and think they will NEVER be able to afford a home. This is a DIRECT impact on them having families. If WE want more kids to get married and have families we HAVE to solve the housing crisis that is occurring in the West. Unbridled greed and seeing housing as investments rather than a place to live and raise a family have caused what I see as a extreme problem to our society today. I would say this is actually the #1 factor in students saying they won't ever have children...simply because they do not see themselves as being able to afford a family and children in the future. This is from those who are in college. I hate to see what despair is hitting those who are not looking at having a college education and the ensuing benefits in the future. We NEED to somehow tackle the greed that has consumed the housing market. We need to somehow make housing affordable for young families and those who want children. We NEED to make children affordable. By making the necessities that are needed to raise children so expensive, we are guilty of being the cause of decreasing the desire and ability of our younger generations to HAVE those children. Even having a child now days (giving birth at a medical facility) can cost over $20,000 in the initial bill. That's insane. It cost me less than $100 for my children to be born. That's 2000x the amount I paid to have children. That's ridiculous and is worse than inflation by a FAR amount. If we want young people to have children, we have to make it so that they can actually AFFORD to have those children. Part III I don't know if it's seen as irrational, but if you combine the two above (despair and giving up about the future and not being able to afford a family) you get a deadly combo of kids who look at families and think it doesn't make sense to try to have one. It's coming from both sides of the equation. One side basically trying to kill all hope that the Kids have OF the future. The other side basically making it impossible to AFFORD the children even if they wanted one. There needs to be SOMETHING done, but I don't see the collective will of society in the West being able to come together at this time to get rid of both of these ideologies and greed to be able to actually stop the destructive forces that are fighting against families today. It's a sad state of affairs we find ourselves it.