JohnsonJones

For us what may seem accidental or untimely are not so with the Lord. I feel he knows how and when we each will pass, even if we do not know ourselves.

That has my interest. I need to look into the turkey roll or roast. I tried to let my son do the carving of the Turkey the other day but my wife would have none of that. I ended up carving the Turkey. I really dislike trying to cut around all the bones, get the legs and wings off, etc...etc..etc.

I actually got instruction some years ago that certain Church leaders should be clean shaven. I believe that policy has dropped and is no longer suggested these days. On a completely separate note though, beards have a long heritage in the Church. Now, I'm not sure the Aragorn look has ever been sported, but we have our choices of many other variations. I personally would favor more of a Wilford Woodruff style. I'm not so keen on the Brigham Young style but I saw a few men sporting it when I visited Utah last. The Joseph F. Smith style seems like a pretty glorious beard if you can handle that much hair. More recently though it seems the David O'Mckay (no beard) style has been in vogue with our General Authorities.

Project 2025 has me somewhat worried. Trump's apparent ideas to go after people and to cleanse the Federal service has me worried (as it sounds a LOT like what Hitler was proposing before he got into power...and it's exactly what he did). HOWEVER...my big reason NOT to vote Trump actually isn't dealing with that stuff currently, as that is something that MAY happen in the future (not an absolute or exact thing) I do agree there is much to criticize Trump about already. Mine, as I think I expressed on these forums recently, is that Trump is not a moral person. I feel we should at least strive to vote for those who are moral to be the ones who hold the reins of government. I think I was clear on who I felt was one of the more moral individuals running (as well as saying appearances can be deceiving...BUT to all appearances currently they seem to be a moral person). It is better to have someone moral to be in power, even if you may not agree with everything they say or do, than to have someone immoral rule over you, even if they seem to say what you want them to say. In my opinion...of course.

For starters Fox News settles with Dominion...owes 3/4 of a Billion dollars Oh...wait...you guys get all your news from Fox...or worse...don't you? It's official, Election was secure But law, order, and those who pursue legal and justifiable measures to ensure secure and free elections don't matter to Trumpers...now do they (which is why Trump tried to scam Georgia's officials and force them to do things they shouldn't do...or so it REALLY appears...which is why he is ON TRIAL about it...IF he proven guilty). Exhaustive Fact Check finds little evidence of voter fraud, but Trump insists it did with absolutely NO evidence So far, the articles are from AP, Brennan Center, and PBS... Ironically Trump's own government at the time put out a statement about the security of the election joint statement elections most secure ever From Cisa.gov NOW...on the otherhand, is there ANY VALID and CREDIBLE evidence you have to insist that the election was rigged and ANY evidence that actually has held up in court that shows that Donald Trump won the election? Evidence that SHOWS Trump won the election that isn't put out by those Gadiantons and Amalakiahites that want to overthrown our government (Like Trump asked Pence to do...luckily for us Pence actually cares about the Constitution and our government). NOT the fake stuff all the flat-earther's and others use...REAL actual evidence that is upheld in court and has proven that the election was won by Donald Trump? (and if you do post evidence, please make sure it is CREDIBLE...in otherwords, none of that conspiracy stuff from the Flat Earthers and such...I don't consider that type of stuff credible). Even Europe and Euronews reported back then about the election presidential election most seucre in us history say security officials in direct rebuke to Trump - From Euronews Trump has lost several many cases refuting his claims of winning the election due to fraud... Reuters reports on it here courst have dismissed multiple lawsuits of alleged electoral fraud presented by Trump Campaign ------

It's the fact that they don't want to send funds over there (without putting conditions which they know probably won't be met) or help in any way. That speaks VOLUMES. It's something that they actually walk hand in hand with those who are openly supporting Hamas who also don't want to send funds or support for Israel.

I don't see the contradictions, but we can agree to disagree. There's a REASON why I said almost all, instead of all. The cases have shown that the election overall was correct in how it ended and who the winner was. The IRONY is that the cases that seem to be intent on trying to corrupt the election thus far that have resulted in actual evidence and convictions have been on Republicans. (For example, the most recent has to do with a Republican's wife in Iowa who's husband still lost the congressional race in 2020, she has 52 counts - with 26 of false information, 3 of fraudulent registration, and 23 of fraudulent voting - against her, it was focused primarily on helping her husband win the race). We will see if Trump is ALSO guilty of encouraging this type of stuff or not. I have to admit BEFORE the 2020 election I would have NEVER thought that Trump or a conservative would lose in Georgia. After what Trump tried to do though..., we'll see how the court goes on this. I doubt a conviction will convince his cult of followers to stop supporting him though. I will admit I like DeSantis a LOT more than Trump. A LOT of what I look at in politicians is how Morale they are. It can be hard to determine that. Sometimes you can get fooled. Looking at DeSantis though, he APPEARS to be one of the more Morale politicians out there. I may not agree with many of his positions, but he seems sincere in his opinions and how he acts. That's far more important to me at times than agreeing with every political point. That's why I don't like or support Trump. He seems to be a very immoral person and a very immoral character. If we allow ourselves to be ruled by the immoral, ultimately it is a reflection of our society (ESPECIALLY in a democracy or in a democratic type government such as a Federal Democratic Republic such as what the US is). Immoral leaders are something that I just really feel we shouldn't be promoting. The OTHER irony is that I'm NOT a democrat, I'm not even really liberal (though I tend to be painted as one on these boards).

It's coming from both sides. On the liberal side you have these kids that have no experience with the deception Hamas is doing (committing warcrimes by using human shields for starters) and sympathize with the propaganda Hamas is sending out. On the Conservative side you have those who wish to send no support to Israel (thus by default supporting their enemies). Those of us who support Israel seem to be growing smaller each day. I can see the non-support/dislike of Israel growing (and it's predicted to in the Bible) among our nation and others along these types of lines unfortunately. That said, sometimes you have to stand against evil groups, and Hamas is an evil group. Ironically if you look at it from the areas I visit, as Hamas is supported by Iranian interests, that goes contrary to the Saudi/Sunni interests of the area.

Because almost every lawsuit that has tried to show this has actually lost when evidence has been shown the contrary. There have been one or two which fraud WAS shown, BUT ironically, it was from the Republicans (one which just resulted in a wife being convicted of 52 counts of it if I've heard correctly). By all the evidence that has been provided, our election system last time WAS secure, but one BIG reason was that they didn't corrupt the officials. This time things are being put into place to do what they attempted last time. If Trump wins this next election I give it a 50/50 chance he may actually be the Anti-Christ. Looking at how well he has many of the religious conservatives in his palm (despite having broken just about every commandment there is), and other checkmarks...it would also match the beast dying and rising again. For all of DeSantis's faults, at least from what I can see currently (and that could all be an illusion cast by him) he is, overall, a more moral individual than Trump who loves his family and cares deeply for them.

You guys are a little strange in some ways. I've NEVER had a group that got together and did these weird things or got out of hand like what you are suggesting (never had the temple questions regarding certain topics brought up here as a question for my recommend either, so it MAY have just been a local thing for whatever area someone was in). The closest to a cult type thing I've experienced has been southern football. That's not connected to something with the Church though. I can't even imagine people forbidding any members from meeting together. What's the point of a ward or stake then? In most areas outside of Utah and the Arizona to Idaho corridor the members are NOT close together. Getting together with members gives strength to each other in communities which are mostly other religions and faiths or beliefs. Normally it's been eating a meal or something to that effect. What type of crazy people do you have in your areas where they decide to go out an start creating their own gospel? Even when I visited Utah I didn't see anything that strange, and members are much closer together. The go to the same schools, they go to the same dance academies, they go to the same sports teams, etc. I didn't see any football teams in Utah suddenly start sacrificing babies to the Sun before the football game or anything! This is just gone off on such a weird tangent? The implication is that those who are members of the Church go into sacrilegious activities as soon as they get together as a group. If Southern Baptists in general don't do this...why WOULD MEMBERS start doing these types of things? (Edit: I bring up Southern Baptists because in general their Churches are much more independent in how they operate and work than our Church. Basically the Church board is the regulating committee, and thus would be far more like that school situation where you have a group of people working together independently on gospel studies and coordination than you do in our Church...etc). It actually makes very little sense. Unless you hang out in crowds that are already susceptible to this type of thing (which is more a fringe group type thing from what I see), then this IS NOT NORMAL. The little bible study group that gets together with the grandmas for the Southern Baptists on Sunday and then put together yard sales and bridge games on the other days...THEY DON'T go wacko like what is being described in these threads, and they are very MUCH into Bible study and discussion. The Come Follow Me program for families doesn't seem to inspire this wacked out behavior amongst small groups studying the scriptures together. Maybe I'm just an unusual member of the Church or something, but this entire "warnings" that I'm hearing in this thread about people who get together to have schools focused on gospel principles or people getting together to study the scriptures seem really odd. Who in the world associates these types of things with people going into wacked out ideas where they branch off and develop their own gospel teachings in a short amount of time? This is definitely not something I can relate to. I've seen a LOT of strange things as a professor at a University, but unless a group is already full of outcasts who can't fit in, I can't say I've seen ANYTHING of the LIKE occurring in gospel focused groups or other such things around me amongst the general populace of students or anyone else.

That is a rather crazy game. Much worse than the experience of making a new one for the University Login. Emoji's as passwords? I have to delete fire emojis? I have use wingding's font? different sized fonts? use the length of your password and it must be a prime number? Okay...I give up...how many rules do they keep adding on? This is rather insane of a game.

I don't think there are any official LDS home schooling programs (for education, there is always "Come Follow Me" for families, but that's more gospel education, not secular). I did find a few links that listed LDS inspired or those programs written by LDS individuals. LDS Homeschool Curriculum homeschoolhere homeschool curriculums These list several which are LDS inspired or LDS creators. Some that popped out at me American Heritage School - offers LDS focused online classes, appears to be more of a local school though. The Good and the Beautiful - Already mentioned above, was originally created by someone from the Church. LIahona Prep Academy - I'm not sure how full of a home education program this is. It appears it could also be a local type school. It is from Utah. It strives to produce a gospel focused secular education. Ensign Peak Academy - I do not know how connected it is to the actual Ensign Peak, but it's reference is unmistakably towards the Church owned Ensign Peak. The next article lists some others... Family School - They note that this is the most popular for members of the Church and Homeschooling. They point out that it is LDS focused. LIfe School K-12 - Is stated to also be a program focused on LDS families.

This is not what I was taught growing up, at least not specifically so easily. I know many times we want to be sympathetic and offer a comforting word on the subject, but the answer to the Original question I think is a little more questionable, especially with so many different things happening (1st marriage to a non-member, 2nd marriage and then divorce, 3rd appears to have a cancellation..etc). It's not something that I feel can easily have a specific answer...though in general I agree with what you wrote. It will DEPEND on the desires of their heart. At one point, Spencer W. Kimball said that men who did not get married in the temple or married outside of it were writing that they did not want to reach the highest degree of glory as their actions already indicated where their heart lay. He also stated that young men that chose not to get married or did not get married were also at fault (at the time, initiation of courtship in most nations was reliant on men courting women). On the otherhand, woman who could not find a righteous spouse but wished (and did not date or marry those who were not members) should not need to worry. HE was the one who said at the time that those woman who had these desires and stayed true to them would have every opportunity that other women did. That no blessing of exaltation would be withheld from them. IN this instance, it was SPECIFIC to woman. Which is why I've seen MANY men worry and wonder about this issue ever since. We know, as per the prophets on this that women, who truly desire to have a celestial marriage and have done all they could to obtain it, will be blessed with these blessings in the next life if they are not able to obtain them in this life. When we come to men, the most honest answer I have that fits doctrinally is to leave it up to the Lord. Commit to live all the commandments of the Church and strive with your heart to do all that the Lord asks of you. It is up to us to trust that the Lord will do the best thing for us in the hereafter. Only one or two prophets have said something to the effect of thus saith the Lord on the subject...and it may not give everyone the best comfort of heart by just reading it out and hearing it. No one recently has said...thus saith the Lord...on the subject as far as I'm aware of. There IS one individual that has said what I feel is the BEST words of advice on this subject recently though, and it was in general conference. This is true. Unfortunately this means that we may not have the answers we would want to know in this life. There are some things that may not be revealed to us. Some MIGHT be lucky enough with enough prayerful study and seeking to get an answer, but many will not. However, trust that the Lord knows our hearts, our true wants and true desires, and who we are and would truly wish to have. He is the only one that truly knows and is our judge. He is the one that loves us and will be our advocate. There is a Talk by Dallin H. Oaks from 2019 that he gave during General Conference that discussed Marriage questions in this regard. One question was from someone who was a second wife and wondered about her own marriage and it's singularity in regards to others. In addition he addressed other things (in a way, even your question) in the talk. I PERSONALLY feel this is the best instruction we have received on the topic in the past decade on this subject. I normally try to adhere to the scholarly idea of only quoting a maximum of 3 paragraphs of something and referencing the rest. I will attempt to do so here, BUT, hopefully will not be looked down upon if I quote a bit more and will not have the Church be angry at me if I do so. (edit: obviously I failed in this, I have quoted far more than 3 paragraphs, but there is a LOT that is extremely pertinent to the question posted in this topic). It has a LOT of good bits of information within it. Trust in the Lord This is a LONG way of saying, I don't know the answer to your question specifically. The best thing is to trust in the Lord. He loves you and knows the desires of your heart. He knows what will be the best for you and for the rest of us.

During the Pandemic, or at least when the Pandemic was at it's most dangerous (the Pandemic is not gone, but transitioned to being more endemic if I understand correctly), the church regularly had wards and stakes record their meetings for those who were trying to follow health guidelines that were suggested by health professionals around the world. There has been many benefits from this. Unlike the United States who think they are the only people in the world (and thought that health suggestions were political ploys done to only win points in the US...which is about as stupid as you can get...but hey...US citizens have a hard time realizing that there are others in the world besides themselves sometimes), the rest of the world still has concerns about Covid-19 and many places are still take precautions. That said, the video above comes from the United States. Different wards and stakes are still continuing the video broadcasts of meetings even after the dangers of the Pandemic have decreased. Part of this is a continuing concern over those who are immunocompromised or have other health concerns which keep them from going to church. In relation to Covid-19 they may still be highly susceptible to it. This is also a service that can help those with this avoid other contagious diseases. Some wards also continue it for the elderly who may have a very difficult time going to church. This is a reason I see churches still doing this for their wards. Overall, I can only see it as a good thing. Not only does it help serve those above, but one difficulty the church has today is it's inability to adapt to the modern workforce in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere. People are forced to work on Sunday these days. Not everyone has the luxury of banker's hours or farmers days. Instead of having a more flexible schedule (it would also help to be able to provide the sacrament in a more flexible schedule as well) that would accomodate todays' workforces, we expect everyone to be able to attend at a set hour each week. Recording the meetings and letting people be able to access it through the week helps them be able to attend, or at least see the service, even if work or other things does not allow them to be there. I wish the Church would be even more adaptable and help today's modern workforce rather than the ideas that were prevalent over 50 years ago. It causes difficulty with some of my university investigators who were in college at times because they worked during the weekends and could not go to church on Sundays when they were investigating. One, who was baptized recently, hasn't been to church since they were baptized. It is because of this reason. Now, I'm not sure what site they used to be broadcasting the services on in our area, but it wasn't Youtube. It was a service that didn't keep up the videos. I know another ward that has their services on Youtube, but I think it's only up for that week. After that it gets taken down and replaced with whatever service is for that next week. I'm not sure about all of how it works today or supposed to work (I'm not the ward or stake tech specialist and don't know what their instructions are), but I think it would be great if the church adapted more to how modern society works than what worked over half a century ago.

We see many of these traits today in the West where there are those who wish for power and will do anything to obtain it. Just like Amalakiah did, we have those who would overthrow the liberty and freedom of the nations of the West so that they can establish dictatorships, Oligarchies, and basically overthrow the freedom of the people in favor of their own rules and dictates. I don't know what the solution is, but it is ironic that many of those who are trying to overthrow our freedoms and liberties do it in the name of morality, even as they try to steal our freedom to believe as we wish and to choose as we desire from us.

If I understand correctly, the problem is that you forgot the answers to your security questions? I am afraid I don't have an answer to that for you. From what I understand that information would probably be kept on your computer, but in a file that is locked in a secure file that, unless you can answer the questions correctly, will remain locked. Normally with an algorithm that cannot be easily deciphered, which is why it keeps whatever information there...secure. Hope and prayer is all I can suggest. I have had this problem in the past. I was lucky in that I had a moment of inspiration and remembered what it was that I had set the password to. After that, I hate to admit, but I have some notebooks I keep all my information in these days. Very insecure for security reasons, but I have to be able to remember the stuff somehow. There WAS a program they used a while back that they could retrieve information from a hard drive that had been lost or locked. Of course, if the information was scrambled behind a secure algorithm, it would just appear like a jumbled mess. It could get most of the information though as long as it was more of a text type of document. All I can tell you is good luck and hope that you figure out the answers to the security questions or the password to get to your locked files.

Looking at verse 2 it says that the Sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all they chose. Here we see the verse that the natural man is an enemy to God. This is more of a thought exercise than anything else on my part. I've been thinking about the Nephites when they came to this continent. We know that at various times there have been MULTIPLE civilizations living on the continent at the same time without knowledge of the other one. A prime example is that the Jaredites were probably around for much of the first few hundred years of the Nephites (either that or Coriantumr lived several hundred years or more). In addition, at some point, the people of Zarahemla were a separate society living at the same time as the Nephites, together on the same continent but separate from each other. Now eventually they all find each other, but for a while there were three separate societies living on the same continent, seemingly unknown from each other. AT least one would be a VAST society that would eliminate itself. Is it possible that there were even more civilizations living on this continent when the Lehi and Nephi first came? That there was a intermixing of them eventually to create the Native Americans we have today? Perhaps one of the things that caused the changes to the descendants of Laman and Lemuel were not just their actions, but perhaps they discovered a tribe of people that were darker skinned and mixed with them. This could also explain the idea of wars with the Nephites early on (though I suppose you could call the battle of 7-9 families a war...if there were an even greater number of Lamanites that were from a mixed family and extended civilization trying to exterminate the Nephites, that would make even more sense. That also explains why it APPEARS there were always more Lamanites than Nephites despite them having one less family on their side). I'm just hypothesizing that perhaps Lehi's family had far more on this continent to contend with, but this isn't something we are told about in the Book of Mormon? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- In that same light, as I ponder the ideas of modern history and archaeology as well as biological science we have the conundrum of Men having been on this earth for thousands of years beyond what it appears the Bible makes room for. Is it possible that there really WAS an creature called man, but it is an animal (much like other animals like wolves, elephants, sheep, cattle, etc) that existed on this earth? That the difference is that Adam, though man, was a Son of God vs. the animal that was man that was already on the earth. Animals do not act on the higher commands of a deity, but normally act upon baser needs, instincts, and emotions. Acting this way as a man is normally contrary to the commandments that we have been given. This is why I list the scriptures above. Genesis 6 is understood by many other Christian religions to refer to fallen angels or things to that matter. That somehow, fallen angels had physical bodies and were able to interact with man and create offspring that were called Nephilim. We do not believe that (as far as I know, the fallen angels never received physical bodies for starters). IN the scriptures it refers to this being a difference of marriage within the faith (and thus eternal marriage) vs. marriage outside of the faith (temporal marriage). What if it is far more literal than that? What if, there were actual animals which were able to interbreed with the Man that the Lord created and were the Sons of God. That the Sons of God did not just marry their sisters, but actually married the daughters of these animals of the species man? It would mean that all our ideas of evolution, or of the existence of the creature man, could be correct, but that there is a higher order of man who is NOT subject to the animal instincts that is created by a Deity and has a higher and more noble design than the base animals of this world. This also would be a massive distinction between the two different types of creatures. The Sons of God were the race of man created by God and who were physically his children. The Daughters of men would be those who were the actual daughters of the creatures that evolved on this planet before Adam and Eve came and were placed here. As I said, this is just me playing games of thought in regards to the secular world and our understanding of it and trying to make sense of it in regards to what our scriptures say. The idea is that perhaps there were others in the places where we see singular individuals appear and that explains what seem to be population booms where, in theory, such populations should not be possible with the small number of families or individuals that we see placed in those areas. It also can explain how science can be correct, and at the same time, our scriptures are also highly accurate.

So, what is interesting is that Sapolsky isn't necessarily saying we don't have free will. What he is saying is that our brain doesn't function in a way that permits us to have free will. That, if looking at it biologically, we are merely responding to our environment. Mitchell of course looks at it from the viewpoint that Sapolsky is a proponent of reforming the Criminal Justice System, and thus, arguing backwards from the idea that criminals are not responsible for their actions and thus their punishments are unjust and our way of looking at that should be reformed. The interesting thing about both is that a conclusion can be drawn that there is something more that gives us our free will. In Sapolsky's case, that there is something beyond our biology that is causing us to be able to make choices and decisions. I suppose we could look at it in the way that the brain is more of a CPU or a processor for something else. It is interacting with something that enables it to act upon the body. I have thought on this very idea in the past that our brain is merely more like a CPU and it is OUR SPIRIT that is the actual item which controls the body and our free will. Now, if the CPU (the brain) is damaged, it's going to make it hard for the body to access memory or other functions of the spirit. However, what we are is not contained within this feeble mortal frame, but within the essence of something greater, that of a spirit that is both holy and divine. Mitchell on the otherhand takes the idea that where Sapolsky sees bacteria as having no free will, Mitchell sees that they do. Obviously, as Sapolsky points out, there is no mechanism in bacteria or other simple organisms for a complex decision making device (such as our brain) and hence the question once again comes in...if they have free will...how is it accomplished. Mitchell has it more on an instinct level of decision making, but also could be seen as a reference that there must be something beyond the biological to give us (and also bacteria and single celled organisms) free will, even if that free will is merely the struggle to survive. In both ways, they are not actually arguing against the idea that we HAVE free will, but more in regards to how the biology works and whether that biology would be the thing that allows us free will, or makes it so that we are merely actors being acted upon. In these cases they indicate that there MUST be something more that allows us free will than the mere biology of the make up of ourselves and the world around us.

Probably wouldn't take faith based advice from Rapinoe. Looked it up and it seems she feels she tore her Achilles in her final game before retirement during the championship (which her team then lost). She already is not religious, so I'm not sure what to take from her statement. It looks like the media is writing she was a joking (a particular wit as I didn't find it that humorous) and there are many who are taking her joke too seriously. As I think she was already an atheist though, I'm not sure she would look at it one way or the other. It sounds as if she is disappointed and upset. She also seems to have a very foul tongue. I hope she recovers and gets healthy. Though it may not, perhaps hopefully in the future her heart will soften and she will find the Lord and the gospel. She may have more time to focus on such things in the future now that she is retiring.

The Context of that particular scripture seems to make it clear he is talking about the Hebrews, and in particular those of the Tribe of Judah which have preserved the Bible and brought it down through History so that others can have the books of the Bible. I think in our modern time we can see the changing minds of those from support of Israel to being against Israel, even in our own nation. Those who used to whole heartedly support freedom and Israel just 20-40 years ago are now refusing it aid and scheming exuses to prevent aid to preserve freedom from Tyranny in Europe and to support the Jews in Israel which have been attacked by a people that have sworn to wipe out all Jews, though now focusing on those from the "River to the Sea" in a new Genocide. It's fulfillment of prophecy (where almost all the world turns against Israel, and eventually they will be alone against enemies that will surround them), but it makes me sad how much we have forgotten that THEY are the blood relatives of the Savior, the chosen people from whence he came, and the chosen who first received the covenant. The Jews have been a persecuted people for centuries though. Only recently did they have a short reprieve due to a the holocaust and resulting horror in the early and mid 20th centuries. I see the persecution returning these days and the dislike of them coming from all men in all nations. It's as the Bible has said, and I think that eventually it will lead to the events of the second coming. We see these things happening before our eyes. I stand with the Church, but I also support Israel. If the Bible is correct, there will come a time that standing with the Jews, or even more so, with Israel, could be a very dangerous position to take. I hope I'll still have the courage to support them during those times as well (saying I'm still alive).

Different solution...derail the trolley. There are chances you kill everyone on the trolley, but at the speed a trolley is going, there are good chances you'll get away with only injuries to those on the trolley (and they have a little more protection than those on the tracks) while not running over anyone that was tied to the track.

Off topic. I appreciated this article. I found the following to be extremely interesting. I have posted things regarding this in the past, but it is always to see it stated once again regarding how strong the binding ties of Temple Sealing and Marriage are.

In that same light, of course, is killing. Some are very troubled by killing at times, even when approved by the Church. A prime example are some of our defenders of our Freedoms (of which I think you were one at one time). At times, many of them have been involved in combat and thus, are in the position of needing to kill or be killed. Others are ordered to kill the enemy, even when not in a direct threat themselves. This killing can be troubling to those who participate, but church leaders have been told to assure such individuals that the sins do not lie on them, but on the heads of those who were their leaders and brought such wars upon themselves in the first place. Less black and white are the situations such as home defense or killing another in self-defense. The unfortunate reality is sometimes people must defend themselves and their homes from those who would destroy them or their families. In the same way, abortion has a few situations that MAY be an exception (stressing the word, MAY there). When it is caused by non-consent or force, When a Physician considers the life or health of the mother in danger. When the baby's health may be in danger or not be viable. In these situations, this is not an automatic reason for abortion, but when consideration could be given with prayer, pondering and consideration. This is why I favor the original Roe vs. Wade where it was NOT an automatic election or "woman's choice" per se, but something that was determined by Doctor. It was something that was kept between a patient and their Medical provider (also a big reason for our medical privacy laws today). Later court decisions changed that (more towards what we see as Woman's choice or my body, my decision...etc). I feel that some do not take these things into account. This is why Ohio was a disaster for abortion rights individuals from what I hear. The Democrats ran commercials with a 9 year old and 12 year old where they basically pointed out that they would be forced to go through with birthing, even from rape or incest, due to the laws that the public were voting on. From my understanding (especially in the case of a 9 year old) the younger a child is, the higher a chance that they giving birth to another would kill them (I am not a doctor). Most people, when shown things like this, tend to get outraged. The problem is that these tend to be the exceptions rather than the rule. I think if we looked at the majority of Abortions done between 1993 and 2020, we would find that it was an extremely small percentage that involved children. A majority probably were done with those who were over the age of 18, though a notable percentage may also be with those from ages 15-18 as well. It is disgenious to try to present it only as something that affects young children (that seems to be the slant that many counter campaigns are doing that are pushing for states to legalize abortion). However, it seems to be EFFECTIVE and why many states are either legalizing abortion within them, or when it is on the ballots, voters are voting for abortion. It would seem more politically intelligent to allow some exceptions in the laws for such cases (which would disarm that entire argument) if one wanted to actually limit abortions and win over the public on the discourse. That said, from conception without exception is a perfectly valid argument, and if more people paid heed to what their religion actually taught, would probably be a more popular opinion.

Several thoughts on the topic (which I believe I've expressed on these forums at various times in other threads). I am not a doctor 1. I agreed with the ORIGINAL judgement expressed in Roe vs. Wade (but not the consequent follow-ups such as Casey vs. PP). In this, a DOCTOR should be allowed to make medical decisions on the health of their patient...not the government. In accordance with that, the things that a doctor and patient discuss and decide in regards to medical treatment may also be kept private between a doctor and patient and do not need to be forced to be shared with the government. I think allowing doctors to make medical decisions in the fields where they are experts should be something we should advocate for. 2. A thought I've had on abortion attacks those who are pro-choice. One of their arguments it that it is THEIR body and therefore should be their choice. They also say that if the fetus cannot support itself, that it is not really viable and thus more like a parasite. That as long as it is their body and the thing inside is not able to support itself or be an independent thing, it is still their body and thus their choice. However, NONE of us are independent. None of us can survive on our own. We all need the Earth (and especially oxygen at a most basic level, dying without it within minutes) as our support. In that way, we are exactly like the fetus's in some ways that they want to easily dispose of. If we are for preserving human life, no matter if it is thinking or not (for example, I do not think most advocate for the elimination of the elderly once the elderly have lost much of their mental faculty. There are some, but I think a majority are opposed to just killing an elderly individual who has lost their mental faculties and still consider that murder), then simply doing away with human life because it cannot support itself without something else, ultimately could come back to condemn us all.

Well, at least one of them had stopped being able to talk and was run over and killed (Alma 30:59). Doesn't seem the best type of place to go around as a poor person. If begging gets you run over I hate to think what trash talking would get you!