JohnsonJones

First off, before addressing your statement...the OP video is frightening. That is a horrible threat they sing...and pointing out other items later in the video just makes the threat even worse. I see it already occurring with your young people at Universities. ON the above statement...why can't it be both. Just as David was a type and a Shadow, but also a real person...why couldn't it also be signifying both?

A thought occurred to me as I read this thread. Some have said that to be separated from their spouse because they only made it to the Telestial Kingdom would torment them for eternity. They would no longer be punished with torment, but emotionally, if they can remember, it could be an endless punishment. It is something they COULD have been, but didn't. Is that torment with no end...or simply the torment ends, but the punishment (not being able to be what one could have been) as an endless punishment of one's own devising?

Is it possible to have things shipped to you where signature is required for delivery?

I believe I am a mandatory reporter (And I believe many states have this specific thing, where teachers and others are considered mandatory reporters). Luckily I normally don't deal with a lot of kids so it has never come up (yet). Even when I served in Ward Leadership I didn't have a case like this turn up (thankfully...that may have caused a conflict in some ways). If you see signs of abuse which could include things such as a lot of unexplained bruising occurring, especially if it is on a regular basis. Broken limbs occurring on a regular basis. A Child comes up to you and says they are being abused. things to that nature. A mandatory reporter cannot just think a child is making it up...the statement must be followed up on. Now, luckily I normally deal with College age students, but we still have to take an online thing explaining such stuff to us. Others also tend to be mandatory reporters if these things get brought up to them.

Well...that's a tricky question. Religiously some indicate that the twelve tribes and their beliefs were scattered and many of the religious traditions that others have today probably can be found rooted in the scattered tribes. Others will say that all belief came originally from the Lord and his gospel, and thus finding elements of that gospel among others should not be unexpected. More scholastically speaking, it is not unusual for different cultures to arrive at similar ideas or conclusions. It is not unusual for pagan cultures to have pantheons of various deities they worship, with different spheres of influence ascribed to such pantheons.

Oh, I won't. I just find it could be interesting to see others insights to the same material as I am reading. It probably also makes better material to read than news stories during the upcoming student hours I'll have (Where almost no students come to see me until either mid-terms or the end of the semester occurs).

I didn't even know there were these podcasts. That sounds fascinating. Perhaps using them as a way to enhance your own scripture study could be useful. I am intrigued by this now. I don't do podcasts though. IF they have some sort of youtube channel that could be interesting.

I'm glad you bring this up. Some other things to note. What the Church promotes as fasting is NOT NECESSARILY Biblically correct or even the fashion in which they fasted in the past. It may be, but it may also not be. It certainly does not fit in some of the ways that fasting is done today by others who fast. There are many different definitions of fasting and how it is done. The Church promotes what we many call dry fasting, or abstaining from food or drink. Most fasts that are religious do not have a prohibition on water. They do have a prohibition on food in many of them. You have Christians that have fasted for weeks (which is IMPOSSIBLE to do with a dry fast such as the Church promotes...you would die if you tried to do so). Some Catholic Saints have emulated the 40 day fast (once again, impossible to do with the Church's version of fasting...which shows that the Church's version has not been strictly religious in this fashion in which it is required to dry fast to fast for at least several hundred years). Other non-Christian religions have it where you DO abstain from food AND drink, but only during daylight hours (and once night sets, you can feast and drink all you want). This is technically fasting for the day, but is also considering the night as not part of the day. Other ways of fasting may not even including abstaining from food or drink, but abstaining from something in particular (for example, going on an alcohol fast...etc). The big thing of fasting and religion is that it shows sacrifice in the pursuit of something greater. Whether that sacrifice is of food or drink or something that you value, you are placing your faith above that of superficial or temporary needs. That said, there are those who should not do dry fasts and I am against people trying to enforce those who should not fast to do such fasting. This incurs what I may call...the CURSES of fasting (though it could be more precise to say of improper fasting). For example...I knew a family that would force their children over the age of 8 to fast. It made 2 of them violently ill on Fast Sundays. To no one's surprise, those kids checked out of the gospel as soon as they could. Torturing your children is not a good way to engender them to the gospel. ON the other hand I've known a family that didn't have any thought towards fasting. Their family never fasted. Their oldest fell away from the Church before they had even graduated High School. There is a proper place and time to fast. Those who are able should, and those who should not should understand WHY we fast and what the reasons for it is. There are ways to fast without having to do a dry fast if one is unable to fast in that manner. It is sacrificing a temporary need or desire by putting the things of the Lord first. Food and Drink are some of the most basic desires (and needs) that we have. IF we are healthy enough to do so, but abstaining from these WITH A PURPOSE, and focusing on what the Lord desires us to do we can gain many blessings. We can grow closer to the Lord and his spirit. We can gain many other blessings. As we fast, it is an excellent time to examine our own lives and see if there is anything special we may be in need of. Having that as something we can approach the Lord with as we fast can help us learn various things on it (whether it is really necessary for us, whether we really need it, why we need it, are there other ways for us to accomplish it, is there anything we may learn from the experience...etc). I find that both the fasting by putting the Lord first and foremost, but putting him above our desires, as well as fasting with a purpose, enhances the fast more than simply fasting out of obedience (though there can also be blessings from that). Of course, this is if you can do it in a healthy manner and are able to do so. I think that those who cannot fully participate in a dry fast can still receive many blessings. Some may be different than those who do a full dry fast, but the core ideas and the faith necessary to fast as they can will still bring the blessings that others receive because it is the faith and the spirit the makes the fast...not the physical qualities of simply doing it.

There are two different theories I may be able to guess at what the OP is suggesting? I am unsure if it is either or neither. 1. There was a thought that has been passed around that each of us who attain exaltation will have to become Savior's of their own worlds. That just as the Savior was this world's Savior, we will also have to do the same thing. Once exalted we will have to become mortal again and suffer for the sins of all our (children/grandchildren) and atone for them. In that light it was referenced as Adam/The Son/the Father as Son/Father/Grandfather. Whether I ascribe to this theory or not is probably irrelevant. I like the second one better. They are not incompatible with each other though. 2. The Savior set the example of being our Savior. He took our place as a proxy to do what we could not. In that same way we also become Saviors on Mount Zion when we enter the temple. We are literally performing eternally saving ordinances that others cannot do. We are acting in their place to do the work that they are unable to. In this way we are fulfilling the idea that we follow the Lord's example of being a Savior, by being Saviors to others by performing the work for the Dead.

I am rather...prudish? on what I watch and read (even by Latter-day Saint Standards). I've tried some of Orson Scott Cards books. One was Homeland(?) which was a little more risque than I appreciated. Language also tends to be problematic in some of the works I've tried to read of his. HOWEVER...from what I understand about Xenocide is that it is HEAVILY based/written on Skousen and Skousen's theories. I don't agree with all of Skousen's theories, but I think Card probably had a lot of Skousen in mind when he wrote it. I have met Card in a university setting previously when he talked to some students and such. From what I gather he bases a lot of his books off of Church materials to some degree (the aforementioned Homeland series or whatever it was called was based off of Nephi and Lehi's journey, the Alvin series was based off of Joseph Smith...etc.). I could see the attraction to Card based on this way of writing and basing his writing off of various aspects you may find in the gospel.

Thanks for sourcing the quote.

Nice Quote

I've seen their items. Morderbund quoted an item from Bishop Partridge, without highlighting the rest of the article, nor using the historical context of other areas which happened in relation to it, which I tried to show and address from the historical context but was ignored. I don't see how Mirkwood's item actually contradicts what I said overall. Historically there were some differences, BUT overall that's exactly how it worked originally when they got to Salt Lake. AS LONG as they were members, they retained the property. This is why, when the entire legal ramifications came around later in regards to ownership, many of them got their property (without attender) to be the actual owners outside of the church's prerogative. However, there is also historical records of people losing that property when they left the Church or other things occurred. The lesson (beyond that quote) also had a few other items of interest NOT quoted by Mirkwood. For example, one reason I included the bolded portion at the end of my post was this quote in the lesson. Of interest, the lesson lists some scriptures which point out to a more communistic lifestyle with things held in common than what others have suggested (and perhaps more than even I have suggested) in this thread. These being some of the scriptures listed... Moses 7:18 Acts 4: 32-35 4th Nephi 1: 1-3 And of interest, this portion of Church history which I suspect may apply today if they tried to institute it Church wide as they had before... AS I said previously, a more limited version of the Law of Consecration is actually practiced today by the Church Missionaries. I do not know if the Law of Consecration as we are to practice it would be instituted in a similar fashion to what they live, but it could be interesting to look at the Missionary program and how missionaries live to see how the Law of Consecration is and could be implemented in our day. Edit: getting away from the entire Communism/Socialism discussion, to me, the entire reason for the Law of Consecration is to put the Lord first. That's really what the point of it is. As the Rich man was told to do (but he could not do), we have to be willing to give everything we have and follow the Lord if that is required. It's one thing to think it, it is another to actually do it. The question we each should have is NOT how much we are going to be given stewardship over, or how much we can keep for ourselves, but would we be willing to have NOTHING and give all we have to follow the Lord and do as he would have us do. I feel that is actually the ultimate point of the Law of Consecration (beyond it's physical usefulness in ensuring all have what they need in mortality). I hope that we have that in common, but I wonder at times when people try to point out what they will get out of it and what they get to keep. It probably is also why I get verbose on it myself. My single point I probably am wanting to make (but make it poorly) is ultimately, we cannot expect to keep anything. We should expect to have nothing in return for ourselves. Instead, we need to be willing to give ALL of it up just for the chance to follow what the Lord would have us do. Physical material items mean nothing, only the Lord means anything in this context.

I think the problem with Global Warming is that the opposite sides have made ridiculous and extreme claims. The Climate Change deniers say it doesn't happen...ever. That there is nothing happening. The Climate Change enthusiasts make claims that are ridiculous and do not happen (For example...isn't New York supposed to be underwater right now. I think Al Gore made that argument and even gave dates on when it was going to happen!). Because of how extreme the claims are that some of those who are a little too enthusiastic about Climate Change, it tarnishes the entire science behind it. I think Climate Change is occurring and think the scientists know what they are talking about, but I with all the extreme information about it on both sides, normally from those who know nothing on the science but jump on board of one extreme or another, it can be hard to figure out what exactly is occurring with it at times.

That doesn't go contrary to what I said...at all. PS: Before reading the entire response, it could be important to read the last note I put in this post if you have not agreed with my statements on Consecration previously. Even under Brigham Young, the property was ultimately the Church's (or his). It could be taken back if the individual left the Church (and, Brigham Young WARNED the Saints what would happen if outsiders and non-members got this property in Utah. One could even say it was a prophecy. It is one that is absolutely being fulfilled today. When I have gone to Utah I see everything Brigham Young predicted would happen if non-members got a hold of the property in Utah, has happened). However, when deeded the land, as long as they stayed faithful in the Church, that land was their stewardship. The property was their stewardship. ONE BIG difference I can see, is they didn't treat it as if they owned it in general. They treated it as if it were STILL the Lord's property and treated it with that same type of respect. Just as we would respect the work that we do for the Lord, all they DID was work for the Lord. Their stewardship was a calling, just as much as being called a Bishop, or otherwise. You still see elements of this idea today, but not as widespread. The idea that your body is a Temple for example. It is the Lord's. You have control of it, but ultimately, it is the Lord's handiwork and you should respect it as the Lord's. Now, the way Taylorsville and other locations (as PER HISTORY...not necessarily what the Conservatives want you to think...but back then...the Saints were actually Liberals and Democrats up until the 40s and 50s, and probably would be politically and economically opposed to the things Conservative Saints support today, though they would still support the more conservative Morality in regards to Chastity) WERE more communistic as things WERE held in common (and were considered more the perfect model of what Brigham Young FELT it should work). I think the problem is that membership has gotten too far into political worship. They think conservative values are the Lord's values...when in truth, historically, the Church was actually very LIBERAL up until the Democrats decided to go against the moral constructs of chastity as found in the Bible in the second half of the 20th century. This conservative worship has made it impossible for many Saints to understand WHERE some of the ideas of the older Saints came from and how it was practiced. I don't think members today would do very well living under the Conditions the Saints lived under up until Joseph F. Smith. The Church was a very different vehicle. Even when I joined, the church was very different in it's feelings and approaches. Ironically, in liberal programs (Church Welfare for example...which had welfare and used Welfare ideas LONG before the United States or most other nations did) the Church was far more successful in them than anyone else has been. If people could SEE how these programs actually worked...it shows the difference between a program run by the Lord vs. that run by men. It shows the drastic difference between what one would consider socialism or communism (and the terms set Conservatives off because most can't understand that there are differences...I'll address that below) when under the perfect system of them vs. that which was created by the adversary as a mockery of those systems. PS: As a comparison between Religious Communism and Marxist Communism. Would you say that every Christian religion is evil? That it is wrong? Or would you say that there is a Christian religion that has the Lord directing it? If you compare the differences between the Religion the Lord leads and other Christian religions, would you say there is a difference? Or would you say all Christianity is wrong and evil? Does it actually help if you deny Christianity and say that our Church is not a part of it? Is our Church Christian? There are certainly those who want to say it is not. Are they correct? When they see us and label us as non-christian...does that actually help? Should we continue to say that we are Christian? What does claiming we are Christian do? I feel that when we see what our Church is focused on and what it is centered about, the very definitions we use to define Christianity must ALSO apply to our Church. By the definition, we ARE Christians. This helps us to understand our relationship to other Christians and to see how our form of Christianity differs from other forms of Christianity. There are those in the World that want to define us differently. They want to say we are not Christians. I think it is this trend that our Prophet is trying to change. He is pointing out that we are Christians...not something different. Comparing things in the same category is useful in seeing the differences between the Lord's way of doing something as opposed to what others do. Admitting that there is One Christian religion that is led by the Lord and then using that as a contrast vs. other Christian religions can help us see the differences between how the LORD does things...and how others do things. The same applies for other programs the Lord has in place. It is the term that offends, but the term fits when using the term Socialism or Communism in relation to how the Saints ran their economics in the early Modern Church. Just as the Definitions apply to us as being Christian, and thus falling in that category because the definitions that define a Christian religion also apply to us...the same holds true for how the church's operations under Brigham Young worked. By UNDERSTANDING how these and it worked, one can see WHY Marxist communism is actually a mockery and poor copycat created by the adversary in relation to the way the Lord ran the system. To me this helps build my testimony on the differences between divine leadership vs. that of men. However, if the term Socialism or communism offends people too much, then perhaps calling it by saying the Lord's economic policies vs. Marxist Policies, Stalinist Policies, Maoist Policies, Modern China Policies, North Korean policies...would be easier and better (though more wordy and you'd have to keep more items in mind then lumping them all together). They each are different from each other (some allowing the ownership of property, even more than the ownership that was held under Brigham Young in some of these communistic ways of doing things) but also all fall under the same umbrella. This expands if we talk about Socialism, because then we have a lot more various policies regarding it. We even have a United States Socialism that is practiced today (and though more stringently based upon the Church's Socialistic programs at it's beginning, now days it's more of a loosely based system that can trace it's lineage back to the Church's programs structures). Socialism and Communism are far more widespread than many think or understand in Conservative circles. One could even say the most successful Socialistic program in use today is not the Church's programs, but the United States Military. One could also say it's successful because it's propped up (HEAVILY) by a non-socialistic form of funding beyond it's own means to support. The Church uses a modified form of Consecration today with it's Missionary program. Missionaries can still have things they own that they buy with their stipends. They are stewards over the places they live and the other things they are given to use. What they actually own is far more limited than what members normally have. Though it was not always so, I also have heard that when their mission ends, any excess funds they may have are to be returned to the mission. If you want an example of HOW modern day Consecration might work...look no further than the missionary program of today. Of course, that is ALSO propped up by those who are not living in that system (much like the military programs of housing, healthcare...etc. are propped up). THAT SAID...I do not know if when the church uses Consecration again or uses it, whether it will be similar to the programs that Joseph Smith ran, or that Brigham Young ran, or will be something different. I will admit, in a program that is ran today, it MAY be what people here feel it will be like. I think that would be a tad unbalanced in relation to the poor nations of the world who would then get FAR less in measure than what Saints in Europe and the US get (and to balance it out, there would have to be a DRASTIC measure of taking stuff from members in the US and Europe to give equal opportunity to those in other nations...but I'm not sure how it would work), but it may be just as some describe it with everyone getting to keep everything they have, just saying they give it to the church in word, but in actuality keeping everything they have with the church deeding it back to them.

Europe is in a situation that the United States and Canada are quickly approaching (But the US and Canada don't have as many areas to support the family as Europe at this point when they reach the point Europe is at). It is too expensive to live in Europe. What I mean is housing, food, and other areas can be VERY expensive in many parts of Europe. Young people look at that, see they can barely support themselves, and wonder how in the world they will support a family. The United States is quickly following that path. Housing costs have rapidly outpaced the rise in wages (even though the past few years wages have shot up, the cost of buying a house has gotten higher much more quickly. My own house is worth around double to 2.5X what it was worth 4 years ago. No one's wage goes up that quickly on average). Food costs are rising rapidly. Even before the current generation the US population was only being able to increase due to immigration. More and more young people are looking at the costs of life after college (and I suppose those who choose to go directly to the workforce or choose another path are also faced with this) and realizing that they may never be able to even afford a home, much less afford a family. Our society has gotten too greedy and placed money and riches over that of making a society where families can flourish. Houses should be a place to live...not an investment. That entire...investment schemes that started in the 70s and 80s have poisoned the well (IMO). Capitalism could keep such things in check...IF we had actual Capitalism at work here. The problem is we placed money and riches over that of our economics and well-being. We still have Capitalism in some places, but we also have a Lot of Corporatism and unrestrained Monopolistic economics instead. They can be part of Capitalism, but normally are not seen as a HEALTHY Capitalistic society. We need to promote the Capitalism that older generations promoted, and put boundaries on the Monopolies and Corporatism that seem to have become unrestrained over the past few decades. I don't agree with Trump...at all...but he was right in one aspect if you look at it from a certain point of view. As a Child and young man, I didn't feel the United States had such Corporate involvement in society and politics. It was far more restrained. Even as late as the 90s, Microsoft and other companies that wanted to be Monopolies were aggressively handled by the Federal Government to push them back. Things Microsoft gets away with now (integrated everything in their OS, so powerful THEY dictate to the customer rather than having to change to be what the customer wants, etc) were seen as a collective evil, even a few decades ago. We need a change back to a more healthy economic period for workers and employers when it was Capitalism where small businesses and individuals could flourish rather than having the Googles and Amazon's drive out other competition. Competition is good. I feel the 50s and 60s were a time when, economically, it was good for our families. Capitalism actually worked well then. We need a reset to go back then so that FAMILIES can actually afford a home. When I was a child and young man a single working father without a college degree (or even any degree) could provide a home, food, the decency of life, and other measures on their own salary. Today, many of those graduating from college won't even be able to afford a place to live. It's hard to talk about having a family when faced with the present day situation many of our kids are graduating into.

I cannot say I know how an office works for Private Practice for a surgeon or for a doctor, but I know a tiny bit about how a Law Office might go and make parallels. In Private Practice, when you own your own business, couldn't you either pair with another doctor (or several doctors), hire a Physician's assistant, or hire a Nurse-Practitioner? In the instance where you take a vacation (or...go to a conference for work or other work related item), you would then have others that could fill the gaps while you are away, handle emergencies that pop up, and keep the office running while you are away. You may or may not make money (Depending on how you run the office, or how you situate it to run), or you may have no loss of income in that situation. I'm certain Surgeons (or doctors in general) have offices where it is only themselves that are working, but it seems that there would or should be ways to mitigate any losses when you take time off if you organize the office in order to mitigate such circumstances. PS: On an F16 you are part of the military and I would imagine you go where you are ordered, and if you drop ordinance without the proper authorization you would be in a HEAP of trouble. You go where you are told to go, and do as you are told to do. At least a passenger in First Class can get up and walk around when the pilot puts on the light. A Private Pilot (sort of like a Private Practice) on the otherhand can make their own plans about where they will fly, make their own determination when and where. If they are in business for themselves (have their commercial license) they can do as others in a private business and decide when they are working, what jobs to take...etc...etc...etc. I've done a bit of flying and I would say in that parallel, I'd much rather be the private pilot than the military pilot. The commercial pilot for the airlines on the otherhand...some of them have quite nice hourly pay (though, it doesn't cover their entire workday. From what I understand they get up and do their flight plans, weather watch, notams, etc all without pay. They are actually working a bit without pay, it's only when they are actually flying they get paid. That pay in the air seems nice though.

And yet, the United States still has more freedom of Speech than most nations in Europe (including Great Britain) have. On the otherhand, Atkinson is not wrong. He is trying to defend Freedom of Speech and what could endanger it even further where he is from (or at least where I think he is from).

So, I think we should love all our neighbors and relatives. That doesn't mean we support behavior we do not feel is appropriate, but we should love them as they are, whether they choose to do the things we would agree with or not. Sort of on topic, and sort of off. This is from someone who was NOT a member of our church, but some consider a rather religious individual. Mr Rogers I like you as you are and a second video that may be more accessible... It's you I like Edit: And one last one...because I think this is something that the Lord would want us each to know, that each of us is Loved individually by him, each of us is important to him...not matter who we are and what we choose, we are STILL loved. Mr Rogers sings you are special

My impression of James Bond media is that James Bond is everything that a good member of the Church should not be. He is extremely immoral. One could say this is hearsay on my part (and yes, it is based upon what I've heard and seen others say and talk about), but from what I've heard, he is a despicable character in every sense of the word. What makes it even more over the top is Flemming's connection to Playboy (the magazine). It seems Flemming and Playboy dealt with each other on numerous occasions to publish or preview his James Bond works (if that says anything about what the content of James Bond would involve). I am not a particular fan of James Bond, so I can see why one would dislike the character. I'm not terribly familiar with Jason Bourne either. It is a character from Robert Ludlum (I believe). If he is more chaste than Bond, then he is already on a higher footing than Bond in my opinion. I was not aware he was an assassin for hire (I thought he was a programmed government agent or something to that degree, who escapes the program and later teaches in the Caribbean or something along those lines). An assassin for hire is probably not something to look up to, but the story I thought was his background doesn't necessarily make him a villain.

I'm a big fan of PTO. Of course, it's questionable on how much Time off I actually get or not. In just a few days I am going to take my summer research trip. In theory I suppose I could continue to research at the university, teach summer classes or even take the summer off! Instead I generally do research abroad if I can do it and then prepare for research at home and other projects. I'm on Salary so there's that item. I generally get to decide my own schedule in working and what is considered time off or not (with University approval...of course). I'm lucky as many who started later on the Professor track do not have these privileges. I've noticed the U.S. is particularly hostile (or more hostile) to the idea of worker's rights and in that line, time off for the workers. It seems detrimental to mental health in many ways. Guaranteeing woman can have children and have time off to bear and bond with a child seems to be more beneficial to society than giving her a maximum of two weeks off to have the baby and recover...or at times...no time off. It seems more beneficial to give your workers time off to go to the doctors and maintain their health rather than requiring them to schedule time off to do such things. By letting them see medical personal to keep up their health it probably helps avoiding health problems in the future. It seems more beneficial to have workers have more time off or mandated time off where they can do what they desire and recover mentally than making them have fewer PTO or sick days as the US does. NOW...if you DO what you love (for example, you love history and somehow manage to get paid to research and teach it...)...then PTO may not be as big of a factor. In fact, you may end up doing the same thing you do at work on your own if you were doing something in that manner. I think the young people today work harder than many give them credit. People tend to think they worked harder than they actually did when they were young. I see young people doing much more work for far less money than what I've seen over the past few decades. To me, this upcoming generation is more cognizant of the world around them and what probably is more fair (what they see other countries doing outside of the US) in regards to work-life balance than what prior generations did. In addition, there is NO employer loyalty anymore. Employer's don't seem as loyal to their workforces as they used to be. Only a few institutions still have employer loyalty (for example, some universities still do...but even then...tenure is a slowly fading idea at some of them, and gaining tenure is harder today then it has ever been in the past). This young generation sees this. If an employer is NOT loyal to their employees, firing at a drop of a pin, laying off at the slightest sign of wage increase, etc...then why should an employee have any loyalty to their employer. This idea is what the younger generation is coming up with. There are no pensions, no upward mobility (it is seen sometimes that changing to a different company will net you a better increase in salary and position than sticking with a company...because the company doesn't promote from within), no desire from many US employers today to help out their workers and thus help themselves. I don't see it as the new generation being less hardworking, but more being connected with what the world is doing today and more educated on what rights should inherently be granted to them and their relationship with those who wish to employ them.

The term Virgin can both mean a young woman or girl, or as in Mary's case, one undefiled or pure in matters of chastity...aka...never having known man. This is utilized by Biblical professors at times to argue that Mary was not actually a "virgin" in the way we see it...which of course does away with part of the miracle of our lord's birth. It is used in both manners in the Bible. In general it refers to one who is a young individual...normally a girl or woman. The strongest argument I have backing up the idea that Mary was herself, a pure woman who had not had certain types of relations before marriage is the Book of Mormon. At that time the word virgin meant more along the lines that we use it today (though it was also still utilized to mean a young individual). Joseph Smith and others would have understood it's context very well. In that light, the Book of Mormon referring to Mary as such shows us the miraculous birth of our Lord. She had no relations with any Mortal man on this earth in the manner which married individuals had. This is just one of a multitude of ideas that can confuse Biblical scholars today where the Book of Mormon, as another Testament clears the understanding and helps us understand the scriptures more clearly. HOWEVER...as I said previously, the term has several meanings and I do not feel it is relating to the idea of chastity (nor that it really bears relevance) to the parable that was given in this instance. In the context of the story of the Topic, I believe the term is referring to young women, rather than a view upon their status in chastity.

I don't like repeating it over and over, but I'll post the quote (still shown above) from Fair Mormon once again... Already, we have seen that the author has distorted the source. The real estate in the valley's is the Church's—the members do not "own" it. This is not to say that non-members cannot (and do not) own property elsewhere. But, since the property owners deeded their goods to the Church, the Church is the legal owner. Not my words...it's a quote. I merely bolded the part so you can see who actually was the LEGAL owner at the time. YES...there were deeds given out. The deeds were not considered legal in the eyes of the government as to those people having claim over the church's claim at that time. This actually caused a GREAT DEAL of problems in the 1870s and a lot of trouble occurred over this. Those who were still with the Church still had these deeds recognized by the Church at the time. Those who had not stayed faithful...well...their stories varied. Most of these are from hard sources rather than internet sources (and even if they were on internet sources, as many of these who LOST their lands are those who left the church...their accounts are not normally seen as favorable and thus not something I would want to post on a forum that should be pro-LDS rather than against the church). However, there IS enough on the internet from sources that are postive towards the Church or Neutral that basically say the same thing (at least from what I see if you put it all together) that at this point I think one is being obtruse on it if they say they can't see it. Anyways, this discussion is beginning to go in circles and that is never fun.

Isn't the Commitment pattern something like this. 1. Hey George...we're having a Bar-B-Que this Saturday. I make some mean Bar-B-que ribs. You should taste some. I think you'd love 'em. 2. So George...You seem interested. It will be great to have you there. The Bar-B-Que is going to be at 3PM this Saturday. Will you be there? 3. Great! So remember...3PM...I'll see you there. It's going to be GREAT! I think that's the basic way it goes...isn't it? It doesn't have to be so formal as some like to put it. If this is what it is, I use it all the time! It's a great way to point people in the directly you'd like them to go and confirm with them to do things. It also is a great way to get them to commit to go or do something with you. Sure, it may be based on business principles...but those principles are there because they work.

This won't go the way Bud Light or Target went in their 'boycotts.' Chik-fil-a is much more centered in Christian groups and has far more favorable onlookings than either of the other two. In addition, this position and person has been with the company since at least 2021 from what I understand. It's not a recent development. I don't think this is going anywhere. I feel it is ONLY being pushed by a few on the left BECAUSE THEY want to make it into some sort of sensation so they can point the finger and say..."hey...look...the right can't even know what companies are friendly to them and which ones are not!" In addition, the comments being pointed out from the Company do not seem to focus on the normal targets the enrage the far right who have protested (normally something specifically focused on LGBTQ+, with Transgendered individuals or items creating the focus for the boycott in general). It's a few of the extreme far right who have some impact (but not to the degree to control the entire boycott movement that boycotted Budlight and Target) that have made a comment or two...but it is a far cry from becoming a movement thus far (from what I've seen). The more ironic is that those who are on the far left cannot tell the difference between a criticism from the minority of the extreme far right from a more popoular movement to boycott by the majority of the far right (note, not just the extreme far right). If it becomes a major boycott I'll eat my words, but right now, I don't see that happening. Of course, I'm more in the middle (neither far left nor far right, at least how I view myself), but I don't think it's the sensational thing that some on the left are trying to make it out to be.