JohnsonJones

When you say Covid Idiocy, are you referring to quarantines and isolation as well as masking policies? Things supported by the Apostles and even the Prophet? What exactly are you referring to? Historically, these measures HAVE helped save lives (though those who haven't read history REALLY tried to repeat it before we had vaccines or other measures to help against COVID-19) during outbreaks of disease or plague. I think our prophet understood this both as a Prophet AND as a Doctor. I think he also understood that where ever a group of Saints gather (whether it is in a family or a ward) it can be considered a gathering of Saints as per the Scriptures, and that from these we can gather strength. In this we also were prepared with a program which could be utilized individually, as families, or as wards (Come Follow Me). It is probable that the ailments and diseases put upon us in these Latter-days are products of the Adversary meant to hinder the work of the Lord, but I think that the work of the Lord will progress regardless. Did Covid-19 make complications for us? Absolutely! However, the servants of the Lord had ways which still helped us progress (broadcasts of Sacrament meetings, the Come Follow Me program, etc). In the end I feel they felt that LIVES and SAVING physical lives were important things to do. I heard MANY that put down the Prophet and some of the apostles for trying to ensure the health and welfare of the Saints at that time, and it does not amuse me. I do not know what you meant by what you stated, but there are things that come to mind simply because there are those that say the Church is important and needful, and then in the same breath try to destroy the leaders of the Church and their policies due to the actions taken during Covid-19 to save lives and preserve health. I feel you must be talking about some other item regarding COVID-19 (perhaps those who spoke against the prophet and insisted that murder, bloodshed, and killing their fellow saints were acceptable "sacrifices" so that they could meet and infect others ...perhaps that's the idiocy that you are referring to, though I'm not sure how that relates to the importance of Saints meeting each week in that light) and idiocy...but I do not know what exactly you mean. Hopefully you will explain what you meant by Covid Idiocy (in a fashion that speaks HIGHLY of the Prophet and the Apostles and the actions they took to help use overcome as well as preserve those vulnerable among us at that time. Perhaps you could also be referring to how the Prophet wore a mask not only as protection, but as an example to us and also got vaccinated to show us what we should be doing as we care for ourselves and our fellow men as the wise choice, and those who were trying to tell us to do the opposite of what the Prophet was showing and telling us to do as being the idiots?).

As someone around that age myself (well, somewhere in that range perhaps, maybe NOT quite his age yet...thankfully) I can understand a momentary lapse in thought. He walks as someone of his age as well. I think McConnell has also had some of this recently affecting him. It comes with the territory. If someone thinks that it means I can no longer work at the university or do research...I'll just say they are wrong. I may be getting older but I'm not dead yet.

That is a good question. In Judaism today, there are many different ideas of what may happen after this life. Not all of them even believe in a life after this one. It really depends on the sect of Judaism that you follow. As @zil2 mentioned, we believe that the prophets had knowledge of the plan of salvation, even in the time of the Old Testament. They were aware of the vital role that Jesus Christ would play in the Salvation and Exaltation of Mankind. This is why they prophesied of a Savior. It was more than just a prophecy concerning a Phyiscal Savior for the Jews from Slavery or difficulty (though it was often used as a parallel), and it was more than just a King. They KNEW of the atonement. With something that important. why would the Lord hide such a thing? When we read the New Testament it sometimes comes across that the Lord ALSO felt that others should know this. It seems sometimes he would point things out and seem almost annoyed when those in power didn't seem to acknowledge it or how he was fulfilling such prophesies. The bigger question about this particular chapter (6) I think would be how Nephi (and this isn't just Nephi, it occurs throughout the Book of Mormon) seems to be addressing men in general and mankind in general. Rather than simply focusing on the Children of Israel, at times it seems to be applying words that are far broader in relation than simply those who were the Chosen people of the Lord (at the time of it's writing). Chapter 6 also seems to be something of a thought that Nephi has in relation to what the preceding writing had him involved with. He and his brothers just had gone and gotten their family records which contain their genealogy as well as the gospel. It is an interesting parallel between the verses you write on and the end of Chapter 5 where his father is directing his thoughts that the records would be found among those who were the Children of Lehi in the future (5:18). It may be then that they are doing something which we read about in the Old Testament. In the Old Testament when they talk about something it normally is directed at the Children of Israel or those who are descendants of Jacob (and thus also Abraham and Issac). Though these commandments and the things they teach are directed towards them, it is also (in our modern Christian understanding) also directed to us and all Christians. Thus, the Old Testament and what it contains still applies to us (in the areas which were not fulfilled and hence no longer need to be done in our worship such as blood sacrifice) even though it is the New Testament where the Gentiles are explicitly encompassed as worshipers of our Lord. The General Language it sometimes has that seems to apply to all (though the Judaic interpretation would have been strictly to those who were of the House of Jacob) really DOES apply to all in those situations, similar to how it applies to those in the Old Testament. Turning this back into the idea of Saving and salvation then we look through the Old Testament. In it, many of the first times we read about it is concerning saving them from Physical foes or right before they fight enemies (such as David fighting the Philistines) and the claim that they shall be saved. Reading some of these more in a Christian Context though can reveal that men such as David understood the idea of a Savior and being Saved. Ex. Psalm 34:17-22 - 17 The righteous cry, and the Lord heareth, and delivereth them out of all their troubles. 18 The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit. 19 Many are the afflictions of the righteous: but the Lord delivereth him out of them all. 20 He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken. 21 Evil shall slay the wicked: and they that hate the righteous shall be desolate. 22 The Lord redeemeth the soul of his servants: and none of them that trust in him shall be desolate. Psalm 69 is also a great example of a Messianic Psalm. Various other places (such as Isaiah and Jeremiah) have meanings which read from a messianic view relate to this idea of being saved. In the same way, Nephi and his brethren have just been saved themselves. They were saved from the clutches of King Laban and his servants which had pursued them to kill them, as well as saved in being able to accomplish their quest against such impossible odds. Just like how David's writings and prayers of being saved when against the philistines or against Saul or other impossible odds would have been seen by the Israelites and later the Jews as the Lord saving him from his enemies, they would have also viewed Nephi's statement. However, from an elevated view of Christianity and how we can have a broader understanding of David's statements and Psalms, we understand that it also is discussing salvation in the spiritual sense. In this way, those who ALSO knew about the coming Lord and his true mission (the atonement of all men) could understand that David was talking about a Messiah that would save us in the afterlife as well as this life, they would probably also understand that Nephi is also discussing this (though with Nephi it is a tad more direct since we are already reading it in that fashion).

I think it was something different than a fruit we know, but if I had to guess a fruit I would probably guess something more like dates. Maybe he had heavily (and I mean so heavy that they are white) sugared (though getting the right type of sugar I'm thinking of in his time may not be a feasible thought) Dates.

I always enjoy reading the Book of Mormon. I can restart from where I'm at and join in on the group.

If I believed as some do regarding the Trinity, and that The all seeing Deity was Omnipresent as well as all powerful and someone asked me out of the blue what I thought he was like... Saying that he is a Gas is probably as apt a description as anything else. You have an omnipresent being that is everywhere and everyplace, outside of you, inside of you, beyond your line of sight...etc. Obviously it's not empty space...so how would you describe such a thing? Something that is there, invisible to your eyes, but still present and takes up space, can be everywhere and in everything and beyond everything... It's not the worst description I've heard in regards to trying to give a physical description to deity. Of course, as has been stated already, we believe in Deity with a physical form and body...but if one did not...it could get interesting on the various ways they may describe him.

It depends on what they were and how. Wounds by suicide haven't been addressed really, nor were piercings. The indications I got were that these types of things would be healed most likely. On the otherhand, Tattoos WERE highly discouraged. I believe that Joseph Fielding Smith had a nebulous quote that is sometimes used that some use to imply that tattoos and other imperfections may remain when resurrected, but that same quote also states that these will, in their due time, be healed and we will actually have perfected bodies in the Resurrection. If only reading part of it, the implication may be found, but the whole statement actually seems to state the exact opposite. President Kimball also has a statement that has been used where he states that non-self inflicted wounds and injuries will be healed. The implication here is that it may be that self-inflicted things might remain in the eternities. I do not think he had in mind for one second that this would extend to transgendered individuals changing their Sex, but it could be used by such individuals to say that such changes that they make are thus ordained and will remain with them through the eternities because they made the decision to change it themselves and thus it is "self-inflicted." This also leaves a very large grey area regarding those who had or got these things and then repented of such things. Another common idea was that as we have the same bodies (or in theory) when we are resurrected, many of the same scars or injuries may remain upon us for a time, but the resurrected body, being perfected, will eventually heal and all these things will be removed so that we have perfect bodies through the eternities. A quick look on current guidance on Tattoos discovered these items (a quick search on google). Tattooing And a Talk from David A. Burton who looked to be a Stake President from around 20 years ago but found on the Church Site Is there anything wrong with getting a tattoo or body piercing From an article linked to the Tattoo page on the Church's site.

I enjoy Krispy Kremes a little too much. They are probably my favorite donut. Dunkin Donuts are ones that I can find all over the world though. The best donuts are the ones from local home town donut shops though.

One of the entities in the world that probably knows the scriptures the best is probably the Adversary. He has his servants just like the Lord has his. Many are probably unwitting servants of the adversary but they are well trained. I THINK (so, this is just my thinking) that many of the things that afflict our brothers and sister at times in the LGBTQ community occur because they give into their indulgences of certain things. They, of course, do not see it as an affliction, but as being able to be themselves. We all have temptation in life. Some of those deal with lusts of various kinds. By keeping ourselves within the confines of that the Lord sets we resist falling into making these things focal points for our lives. However, in many of these groups, when they fall into these temptations they make it large part of their identity. They are now told it is okay to let these things become a focal point of their lives. It's not just LGBTQ individuals though. Among the university students, immorality and disregarding the Law of Chastity is prevalent. Many of these students are religious and claim to be Christian, but they find ways to support their immoral behavior via their various religions by how they interpret things and how they justify it by their interpretations of doctrine. I find it heartbreaking, but it is beyond my purview as professor to do much or anything regarding it, or even saying anything to them about it. We live in a time of great immorality and wickedness among the people of the Western (and Northern) Hemispheres today. I absolutely agree the adversary has flipped the script in many ways. What is good is evil and what is evil is good in today's society in many ways. Great quotes by the way. I love using Doctrines of Salvation in my reading (among other books).

Edit: This is the same pathway which they will use these facts in their arguments, and why it becomes difficult to actually answer the question without falling into other traps where they can argue against the idea of two sexes or genders. As I said, it's a TRICK question. If someone is asking about this in regards to Transgendered indivduals or LGBT you need to understand WHY and WHERE they are coming from. In this instance, they are using the argument that there has always been gender (which is true). That Gender is a social construct that is utilized in labeling things or identifying things regarding that gendered use (also true). By simply saying...nah, uh, nani-nani-boo-boo, you are wrong and there are only two...doesn't do anything to effect their argument. They have stated some true items and you've fallen into their trap. By trying to say that the facts they use as their reasoning are wrong or false, it simply looks to invalidate your own argument before it even began. They have facts on their side when they state these things. The point isn't to refute the truth that they have backing them, it is to find the flaw in their arguments, or alternatively, not fall into the trap in the first place. I see this was the problem when the Gay Marriage came up on the Federal level as well. The argument the LGBT were making was that Married people got more rights simply from being married than anyone else did. They felt it was unfair that some people got different rights than others and that those rights should be broadened out to include other groups (such as gay individuals who chose to identify their relationship as a marriage). That by giving one group more rights than others it was inherently unfair, unjust, and promoted inequality. Instead of figuring out a reasoning towards the path that equal rights would or could be extended and yet retain the holiness or sanctity of what we now call a traditional marriage, arguments took a turn that had NOTHING to really do with the actual context or item that the LGBT groups were arguing. At best it tried to justify giving more rights to some and less rights to others, at worst it simply ignored the argument and tried to make a new one regarding it being just a natural state vs. and unnatural state. Ignoring the actual argument did nothing to help win the case and Gay Marriage is now the law of the land. In the same way, we now have a question regarding how many genders (or sexes) are supported in the Bible. More directly, Biblical support for more than two genders in the Bible. This is actually an argument that has been brought up by LGBT specifically BECAUSE no matter how you look at it, the Bible supports more than one gender by most languages it was translated from, and sexes in what it actually defines and talks about. If you go this route, you CANNOT win the argument in this fashion by simply saying it only talks about two sexes in Genesis. Anyone who has a background of study in the language and intricacies of the Bible will instantly realize that this is a trap. It's a trick and if you follow their line of reasoning, you WILL not win the argument. It's unwinnable by the facts of the case as presented. AT least as far as I can see it. If you think the people asking things or presenting things like this are ignorant you are only fooling yourself. Many of these are actually well read and well educated in many areas of classical literature, biblical studies, and religious studies. For LGBT who are using this in regards to religious discussions (it is not just the Bible, if you go through Catholic History or other historical contexts they have many other questions that are basically "trick" questions) they have a goal and that goal is to tear down religion. If you don't know the facts in detail (even as a professor and knowledgeable about certain things regarding the background and origins is not enough for many of them) in these types of instances, it is better to try a different approach. If you say there are only two...they have enough facts that they can bore you for DAYS on the various aspects that prove you wrong from either your Bible or from religious history. These facts are not wrong, but they MAY be applied in a flawed manner (as you so notate in your post). They will hit you with a preponderance of evidence. You will not win this in this manner. I am saying this as someone who has at least some understanding of the language, the support in the Bible for these things (as well as in classical literature and in history itself), and why they use this argument to support their own statements in regards to why their take on Transgendered individuals, Homosexual activity, and Homosexual actions are justified in Christian Religions. This is a trick question and one that is probably not going to go the way you want it to when confronted by individuals who feel that they are justified in LGBTQ acts by the Bible and by religion. Instead, if you are going to post there are only two genders or sexes, try a more faith based option. Use the proclamation for the family then and when asked how it proves such, admit that it is based upon faith and belief on modern day revelation and the right of the General Authorities to receive such revelation. They can then say all sorts of facts to try to disprove you, but they cannot tell you that you cannot believe or have faith in the way you do. You have something to back you up and it is then upon them to try to show or prove why this faith or belief is misplaced (and trust me, they will try...). Bear you Testimony. This may not have any better chance of convincing them (unless somehow they can feel the spirit and it can turn their heart, which is a better chance then the alternative) but it can help bolster your own faith in light of their arguments. If they get overly aggressive, leave the conversation. It can only get nasty and mean if you continue to try to press the issue and they will not let you have your faith or feel the spirit in their heart. I have the unfortunate experience to have this occur with multiple young individuals in the university system and can say that bearing your testimony and utilizing your faith and belief in the prophets and modern revelation is a MUCH more solid foundation to build upon than trying to argue the facts with them.

What I'm about to say will probably be an unpopular opinion here (what's new). In truth, if one focused solely on their college degree they probably could finish most of them in two or three years. The question is if that is the purpose of college or a university. There are those that say yes...it is. For some degrees it is probable that you could get away with this idea (Engineering, Nursing, etc). However, that ignores the majority of degrees out there. Why do those degrees even exist? Let's take Law or a Law degree. In theory, you could ignore the undergraduate and simply let them go to Law School. If this is so, then why not do this. Why is it that Law Schools in the United States generally require an undergraduate degree? There is an idea of well rounded education, or of a well rounded individual. Education from a University has traditionally (looking at education from the viewpoint of the past several centuries) not been something for the everyday individual. They everyday individual went into trades (such as carpentry, smithy, cobbling, etc). They had their own system of advancement and training that was DIFFERENT than the University system. Those who went to the University went to learn in general. They went to learn about the world and about how it worked. Because it took money, and sometimes was seen as not all that useful in life (as opposed to trades) it leaned more heavily on those who had money and time to spend. In the more recent past (as in the past 200 years, and still evolving) those who went and got a university education were seen as different. Universities were not simply teaching a subject, but teaching the individual HOW to learn and HOW to adapt. Those who could actually LEARN this skill and graduate were seen as superior in how they could learn to adapt to different situations, learn to improve things, and were better able to be managers and handle the varies situations over that of what tradesmen could do. It is THIS skill that was sought after by many companies and groups during the mid-20th and late 20th centuries. This is why someone with an Art Degree in the 80s may be able to become the district manager of a grocery chain, and advance even higher. This is why someone with a Music degree could sign on with Oracle and become a VP in the 90s. They weren't trained specifically in Business, but it was the training of their minds. Furthermore, by giving them a sampling of different venues of life (English, History, Sciences, etc) the universities were creating a more well rounded individual. Someone who could know a little bit of many things, though only practicing becoming an expert (eventually, if they went for graduate studies) in one thing. It slowly (it was not always so) became that THESE individuals were seen as more desirable than others. Medical Schools, Law Schools, and then even Law degrees got vectored to where they were looking for these specific types of people. Those who excelled in the university environment, but who also were well rounded in many different areas. Which would you rather have as a criminal defense lawyer in a trespassing case in a city stadium Chicago. Someone who only studied law...or Someone who studied law but also understood a little bit about the history of Chicago, the situation of the politics and ethnic groups there, and had a little background sports and stadiums themselves when they were younger and played sports? Which do you prefer? Today, undergraduate classes have an added boon. Many of the young people coming do not have a clear picture of WHAT they want to major in. Different classes can give them a taste of what each major may have to offer. It gives them time to decide what they want to do as they take their generals. It also adds to their understanding in how different things may interact (for example, take a History of Civilization class with a focus on science and you can see how the two interact quite intricately throughout human civilization). I think if one wants to focus on one subject entirely there are still the trades out there (and some of them pay quite handsomely. I know a plumber and an electrician that earn FAR more than I do. They are experts at what they do and are very skilled). There is also graduate school. If they feel so inclined to go to another nation and apply to their programs they can do that. However, I think the value of the US educational system is extremely good IF you spend wisely and act wisely in how you choose what you study.

Scholastically, there is more than two. This is not a NEW thing. It is history that has been known for a LONG time. If we just take language itself, which is where one of the ideas that gender comes from, you have multiple genders. You have the masculine and you have the feminine of course. You also have those that are neither. In English I suppose a parallel would be you call a Ship a Her or she. Dogs in many instances when actual gender is unknown is referred to as he. In years gone by certain professions were known as He. On the otherhand, you normally do not call your spoon a he or a she, but it. ("Can you get the spoon. Can you place it on the table.") These are three genders in English right there. There are traditionally six Sexes. It doesn't matter what your OPINION is, it doesn't change the facts of the world. These things are not NEW inventions. They have been around for centuries (or in the case of Hebraic and Judaic...Millenia. The Lord in his time would HAVE KNOWN about these). If there is ANY hijacking in this instance, scholastically speaking, it would be those who are insisting that these things never existed in the first place and ignore their current usage today that have been derived (and are able to be seen in US English for at least several hundred years at this point). THIS is why it is a trick question. You have to define WHAT the person is talking about and what they are inferring about in regards to gender or sex. Are we talking about electrical plugs or outlets? Are we talking about language. Are we talking about people. In theory, when we say there are only two...we are actually WRONG in one sense of expression. On the otherhand, we are exactly correct in another. You cannot simply change history and say it did not occur and that the language used never happened. By denying that there are different ways to say something and utilize it is not all that useful. It is ONLY by understanding what and how it has been used traditionally that you can see the flawed logic that many are using today to make their arguments regarding how it applies to those who wish to be another gender or sex. Simply stating they are wrong without actually understanding where they are coming from and how it actually applies will never convince them in general, and normally will never win an "argument" against them or convince a judge to side with you. Then, when you lose the case (as the conservatives have in the past against the Supreme court in regards to Gay Marriage, which I FEEL have been lost because they didn't even understand the arguments the other side were making in the first place and thus have NOT created a EFFECTIVE counter argument against it), complaining that it is only because the adversary is rising in influence (which is true, but is not the entire picture), it fails to take responsibility of WHY you lost on your own merits in the first place. Court cases and other items ARE WINNABLE if you have a good enough argument, the right evidence, and a persuasive case. When you lack two of those right from the start because you fail to understand where the other side is coming from...well...who then is really to blame? THIS is why it is tricky. It is a trick question from the get go. There IS support directly from the Bible for more than two Genders. That isn't even a question. Anyone versed in the various languages of the bible can tell you that there is support. This is NOT even a question. But that's NOT the question that we should be asking. Coming in from that front, you are creating a case where the evidence already stands against you. It could be a losing case if we go at it from that direction. The question to ask is HOW is this relevant to the current situation and (For LDS who HAVE a living prophet and modern revelation) what does MODERN revelation tell us about it and how WE should look at the picture. The Bible also says it is okay for me to have slaves and how much I should pay if I injure one. It tells me that I can kill a child if they disagree with me and discipline my spouse. In this instance, is that what we are actually relying on...or do we turn more to MODERN revelation and what our General Authorities say today in regards to these matters? That's the point where we should be approaching these issues because trying to play on game field that those opposed to our gospel have created and letting them set the rules is a good way to lose a game. ADDING - TLDR or interpreting what I said in a more succinct manner... I have found in my experience it is better to bear testimony where the spirit can support us, than to argue over facts with another person. Present the gospel, testify of it's truth and then let the spirit do it's thing is far better than to try to quibble about things where we may not have a solid footing regarding "facts" as the world sees or interprets them. If the spirit can touch the soul of who we are talking too, this is hopefully a way to change their heart and convert them to the truth. If not, and they still want to attack from this angle, get out of there as quickly as possible and leave.

Those blaming DeSantis are angry people that are looking to blame anything they can on DeSantis. Their logic makes no sense if you really look at what happened. That does not matter to them. They simply want to have others agree with them so they can put a black mark on DeSantis.

WELL...this is a trick question...or the question about how many genders are discussed in the Bible. Gender and Sex can be considered two different things. Then you get into what language the Bible is written in? Do we go with the Six Sexes recognized in Hebraic and Judaic customs? In most Biblical languages you can identify at least 3 genders at a minimum (the Masculine, the Feminine, and the more Neutral). If we go by the Six, there would be the Male, the Female, the Intersex, the Barren Female, The Eunuch (Eunuch by birth or otherwise) and the undeveloped or unidentifiable gender (which I supposes covers all the other bases). Many of these can even be seen as addressed in our English translations of the Bible in various ways. Look for scriptures talking about woman who could not bear children, or those who were Eunuchs, or creatures not identified as any gender (such as certain angelic hosts or such), and you can see these traits come through even in our Current Bibles in English. SOOOOO...as I said...trick question. Who is asking...the world and the scholars of the world about ancient literature...or those who are Latter-day Saints in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? What purpose are they wanting to illuminate with the discussion? The Gospel states that there are two, male and female, or men and woman, as far as our reasoning goes. This applies to what the General Authorities have clarified in their various statements and proclamations over the past few decades. If the discussion is about what the Bible addresses and how it addresses such things and how that should be approached, that MIGHT be useful from a Seminary viewpoint. However, it probably should also be addressed the official Church's position on such things.

Not all of the answer, and barely even starting a part of it, but... If you view the choices of this life, apart from the smaller choices (what color to wear, what should I eat for breakfast), agency in this life boils down to what master you will choose. Will you make a choice that leads you up the path towards serving the Good Master who grants us freedom, or the Evil Master that only wishes to enslave us. In that light, the choices that deal with true agency in this life boil down to whether you will choose good or evil. Another way to phrase it is whether we will choose to obey the commandments we have been given, or choose to disobey the commandments we have been given. The choice in the Garden of Eden was the first opportunity to either choose to obey or disobey. They most likely could make small choices in life such as whether to walk to this tree or another tree, but the agency talked about was the choice of whether to choose to obey what they had been commanded, or to disobey. It boiled down to that choice in the end. However, as they lacked knowledge they could not truly choose whether to choose good or evil, thus could not sin. However, by disobeying they could still transgress. They were given the choice, or agency, between obeying and disobeying. Once having eaten the fruit, not only did they have choice, but they also had understanding and with understanding came a deeper choice.

Sort of On topic, but leading away from the vulgar... Procreation is one of the most greatest powers that we have been blessed with on this earth. It is commonly practiced, and yet it is one of the mnst sacred acts that we can participate in. How do we actually treat it? Do we treat it as a holy act or do we treat it more worldly? Having read about the Prophet and his wife's descriptions or implications of how they approach such acts, I have somewhat thought at times that perhaps before interacting n such ways that a proper way to do things may be to say a prayer and focus on the holiness of the act prior. It could be that putting it as a holy act and with prayer prior that it would put it in a different approach and attitude than what the world does. It probably sounds a little kooky, and I admit it is a little more than a thought process that I've had, but it is something to consider. Simply not talking about it probably doesn't imply how sacred an act it truly is. With this is the power of creation, a power that among those who are not mortal is only given to those in the Highest Kingdom of Heaven. I have thought about this a little bit, and praying may not actually even be enough in regards to the holiness of the power granted. This was given as a devotional several years ago. Love and Marriage There were four items she listed (and you can read the entire talk at the link) but I am only listing portions of the Second and Fourth So I brought up prayer because that's one way to bring in the Spirit. However, in what ways would one have the spirit while participating in acts of Procreation? This is a tricky question to ask and can actually be somewhat uncomfortable to discuss (TBH). However, as the subject was brought up with seriousness, I think that this part of the equation should also be addressed seriously. Part of her concluding discussion on the matter dictates that there IS a difference between how the world treats it and how we should treat it...

Well, I don't like how both sides are trying to play the trials for political points. It would have been FAR better if the trials against Trump were done and over before the end of 2023. Both sides have tried to delay it because they feel it will offer them political points. I'd rather the trials be done without consideration of the future election and just completed. Have them OUT of the WAY before the actual primaries and such are underway. Of course, that's not going to happen, and it kind of irritates me.

If it's the same story I read about, the woman who got the parasite was eating a salad made of some sort of greens that she gathered up. These were wild greens that were near her house. The doctors thought that an infected snake or something had been among those greens and shed some stuff among them which caused them to carry the worms. When she ingested them it caused the worms to infect her. They suspect it was not just the brain and could have other worms throughout her body. After the discovery and removal of the one in her brain I think the article also stated they started her on a therapy which would also kill or remove any other worms that she may have.

Understanding where we came from I feel is important. However, it is where we are and where we are going that is truly important. What we are and how we worship our Lord is the important focus of our lives and it is THAT which will determine where and how we will be in the time after our deaths. However, the explanations for the unjust and unfair positioning of our lives on this earth (why am I a US citizen who has been taught of the Lord and Christianity, had the many blessings of life and consider that fair that I am saved when an individual born to a primitive tribe in the Amazon will never hear of our Lord, nor have the niceties of life has their lot...how is that fair OR just in Christian eschatology which says those who do not accept the Lord in this life are not saved?) can be explained extremely well if there was a pre-existence. It then may be that the position we are born into this life was predicated upon events that we chose in a time prior to this. In fact, an eternity spent prior to this where our choices are reflected in our position in this life goes a very far way in explaining the great injustice and distinct imbalance where some are more privileged in birth than others. We may all be born naked and small, but we are NOT all born into equal position. We are not all granted the same things in life, and some will have a much harder time in life than others. But, some may say, there is nothing to support the idea of a pre-existence in the Bible. Ecclesiastes 12:1-7 How can a spirit return unless it came from whence. Now the non-lds explanation is that this is the breath of life, but then that explanation supports the Jehovah Witnesses' take on life and death, because if your life or breath of life departs you and that is the spirit, then you go back to eternal slumber as most do under the JW explanation (meaning, they would be correct). However, if it truly means the spirit or soul rather than the breath of life, than it is you that continues in existence, and returns to the Lord who gave the soul to this life. However, that is still not explicit enough perhaps...so we turn to Jeremiah 1:4-5 The explanation by some who are not LDS say this is because of the omniscience which our Lord possess, but I do not think that really explains it well. For, a fan of John Wayne may know all about him, his life, his birth, and maybe even things John Wayne didn't even remember! However...do they truly know John Wayne? Knowing is a two way street...and in this...the LORD KNEW him (not in the carnal sense). It may be that we will disagree upon whether pre-existence is a thing or not, but for me it makes more sense in regards to how some things occur in this life than any explanation I ever heard in the Catholic Church. Though, to bring it to full circle again of what I said at the start, the most important thing right now and today isn't what our station in life is or a pre-existence, but what we choose to do today and who we choose to follow. In that we can be brothers in Christ, and agree that it is through his sacrifice and atonement that we are saved.

Though not the Book of Mormon, if we go by the Pearl of Great Price (which has part of the First Book of Moses) we learn that (according to that book) it was revealed to Moses by the Lord, or that's what it seems.

You can have pre-historic societies today. As a Historian I normally deal more with the writing a society has recorded than trying to decipher who or what they were merely from trying to interpret the different physical clues they have left behind. With the written records we can still know about societies that we may not have written records for. Written language is normally the key for history, but not the only way that a culture or society can have written records. One major thing that can differentiate between fiction and reality (though not the only way) is whether a source is a primary source or not. Is it something that the writer actually witnessed and/or experienced? If it is something that they are merely relating that they've heard, but never seen or experienced themselves, it greatly devalues how reliable that information is. WE can still use those types of records to try to figure out culture, traditions, and rituals of a society and how they interacted with their lives, but those records are not something that can always be reliable on relating what actually happened. In regards to the Bible, this means that some parts are more acceptable as possibly being related to events that are proveable, while other parts are not.

Epstein didn't kill himself... I think some of the awake to our awful situation points out that we ARE in an awful situation and to do what we do in other awful situations. When the tornadoes hit and the floods come, what do we do? We gather our resources together, we gather ourselves together, and we prepare to survive through the onslaught. In a similar manner, we are in the midst of this awful situation today (though it will probably get a LOT worse). We need to gather together often in our wards and stakes. Edify each other in the gospel and build our testimonies against the moral assaults that are attacking us and our families.

In OUR era, Pre-History is before written records. It is probably good to go by the definitions of our era in using terms. It's before we have written records of the civilization. With Genesis we have some of it repeated in the Pearl of Great Price. Overall, the two reflect each other well, though far more information is given in the Pearl of Great Price in the areas it covers of Genesis. With our Lord, I think the word carpenter derives in translation from a term similar to Craftsman. I haven't gone into depth to see how they derived the idea of carpenter from Craftsman, but there are many different ways it could have been inferred (or directly stated) what his line of work was. Working wood would have still been necessary in the Roman era no matter what the location. Even in the desert of the Nomad they had need of wooden articles. A prime example (though more for a wheelwright than a carpenter directly perhaps) is a wheel. Most wheels were not Made out of stone (though not unheard of). Wood was far easier for many to work and to utilize. The same goes for the making of various tools they would have had and other instruments that they would have used during their lives. Of course, the original post was pertaining more to Genesis than the New Testament. I think Genesis is accurate (as I stated above) from a PERSONAL viewpoint (not scholarly). I think as it is used in conjunction with other sources (the Pearl of Great Price already mentioned above, the Doctrine and Covenants and Book of Mormon) we can grow to understand more about gospel principles and our relationship with our Father and his Son. There is a LOT missing from it, which is why there is room for many other things to fill in the gaps (such as the aforementioned PoGP). I think by going to the Temple and participating in ordinances there we can further understand the significance and symbolism found in the stories which are contained in Genesis and how they pertain to us directly in our present day.

Does this cover BYU as well, or just CES? Differences if it covers BYU would be that it does not dictate that shorts need to be at least knee length for starters. It gives suggestions on clothing, but not a mandatory length of sleeves or shirts.

Scholastically, it is not something that can be taken seriously (if we are talking serious history). Personally, I feel it is extremely accurate. The problem is that it covers a LOT of time in a very short amount of space. This means that though the information there may b accurate, it is not very comprehensive. There is a LOT of gaps. In fact, comparative to the time it covers...MOST of it is gaps. Most of it are blank spaces on explanation leaving a LOT of room to explain. It would be like trying to explain American History and you use one sentence to explain it. "The United States was declared in 1776 and lasted over 200 years." That leaves a LOT of area to talk about it and lots of room for much more to occur. Even if we expand that to something like 5 chapters of 1000 words each...how much information can you squeeze in there about the United States of America? That's a short history (US history is relatively short comparatively to other nations in the world). Genesis covers thousands of years.