JohnsonJones

OFF TOPIC (AND NOT FROM A PHYSICIST...WHICH WILL SHORTLY BECOME OBVIOUS)... I would think it would be like the speed of sound. At one time it would have seemed impossible to go faster than the speed of sound, and especially if you were talking, to have that go faster than the speed of sound. How can it then...simply by adding +1. It's not that simple though, because it is ALL relative. If you are in an aircraft going faster than the speed of sound (sonic boom outside, aircraft going faster than the speed of sound), because it is a closed system, if there were two of you, the two of you could talk in the aircraft. In theory then, as the aircraft is going faster than the speed of sound, with your voices going in the aircraft, if it travels in the same direct as the aircraft, you are speaking the speed of sound+the speed of the aircraft...because it is all relative. In that way, the easiest way to go FASTER than the speed of light could be to be in an enclosed system that is traveling at the speed of light. Then, you could move an object INSIDE that closed system (relative to the system, because it is relative to the system and not to light outside the system) faster than the speed of light. Not that it matters....and as I said...not a physicist, but I would think that could be a way to go faster than the speed of light. If you could make the enclosed system large enough, and than have several enclosed systems in a closed system...shouldn't you in theory be able to go several times faster? The speed of light is still retained, but as it is relative in regards to what you are traveling in, though it is faster than what is outside the system, it is still only traveling at the speed of light within the system. Similar to how we are all speedsters going ~67,000 miles per hour, but we don't even realize it. Add to that, we are also traveling in another system at around 490,000 miles an hour and we are booking it at over 550,000 miles per hour! Add to that we are traveling an additonal 2,235,000 miles per hour with the galaxy and we are getting close to going almost 3,000,000 miles per hour! And yet we can still hear each other and see light as it normally appears!

LGBTQ+ is just the end result of decades of immorality. In many ways, it is merely an extension of immorality. The divide has just been going on so long that the Adversary is now able to take hold of both sides of the argument. How many of us condemn LGBTQ conversations, but then will turn a blind eye to those living in sin (as we put the term among my generation at least), or those who are committing infidelity, or those who divorce for no real good reason? All the LGBTQ+ has done is to move the target even further to the far side of where it should be to the point that we don't even blink when faced with other sins. TV seems RIFE with immorality these days. It is as if it is just accepted. No matter where you go, modern entertainment and media is talked about among members. Most of this stuff is filled with immoral material! I think the numbers of the Church compared to the world are small. The number of active members compared to the world are even smaller. The number who do not participate in watching modern entertainment that is filled with immorality I feel are even smaller. I don't know where the dividing line is, but I know from the Book of Mormon those who were saved were not saved necessarily because they were righteous, but because they were less wicked than the others. In the US, it may be that there is no real dividing line, merely those that are less wicked than the rest of the population. That could go for many other nations as well these days.

This is true. The reason I say Abel was the chosen line was because I was taught this in my youth and that this was also taught by the prophets (it is what I was told, I do not have a reference for it). WE do see this which could be seen as symbolic from Moses 5 (Edit for clarity: Symbolic in that, though the events happened, the symbolism is also regarding the flocks in that instead of the Savior being our master, with lacking that the flocks now revert to another). As well as this which indicates that Seth WAS more than just a righteous man, but an actual replacement

The Book of Mormon is something I would encourage anyone who is interested in what may happen at the last days to read. It was written for the Nephites and Lamanites and also the Jews. It was ALSO written for us and our time. The events around the Lord's birth and his death and resurrection as found in the Book of Mormon are a type and shadow of what our own last days could be like. It even includes a millenial type time of peace and faithfulness. If the wickedness foretold in the Book of Mormon are true, than we still have a little ways to go. It doesn't sound like it will be pleasant to live through some of the events leading up to the second coming. The Doctrine and Covenants also has quite a bit in regards to the second coming and what we should do in our own time. (edit: Many read these two items, some even study them, but most do not go into great pondering, praying, and thinking about the exact details).

Activity rates are dirt low outside of Utah. From what I've heard activity is closer to 25% or even 20% than 50%. In that light, you'd need 25% of the church having record numbers of children to come up with a rate high enough to replace the others. I've actually had some thoughts on this recently (Due to some recent things that happened with some students and investigators around me), but don't think this is the appropriate thread to address it. The numbers at institute are rather low in relation to the number of members at universities as well. There is a general trend among young people to move away from Christianity in general. That the LDS church is retaining the numbers it is, is actually sort of a testament to the church. It seems that the numbers of young people growing distant from religion and Christianity have shot up to numbers I've never seen. There seems to be a definitive split between 2020 and after. The numbers seem to be growing at a much faster rate (this year especially) of those disillusioned with religion, or even more, being outright hostile towards christianity in general. The Church wants us to be seen more in line with popular Christianity (at least that is my impression), but it is too late for that. Christianity as a whole right now is having problems. We don't stand out FAR enough from Christianity any longer, and being bunched in with a sinking ship won't do us any favors. We need to show why we ARE better than the other choices out there, and WHY we are different that they should not lump us all in with those that they are starting to disassociate with (Sometimes for good reason).

I feel that they were originally sealed together in the Garden. This would mean ALL their children would be born under the covenant. It does not make sense to me that the Lord would purposefully cause any of his children to be born out of the covenant when he is the one officiating over the ceremony. The story of Cain and Abel does not depend on whether Cain was the First born, the second born, or even younger than Abel. What matters is what the story is about. Abel was the chosen one, or the chosen line through which the Savior would have come through. Cain wasn't just being disobedient or sinful. He chose to follow the adversary and in doing so choose to try to destroy the plans of the Lord. The idea was that if he could kill Abel, then the line would never exist, thus the Lord could never be born and there would never be a Savior for all mankind. Hence, he became a son of perdition. He was so set against the plan of salvation he would destroy it if he could and follow his new master into darkness with the hope that he would condemn all men to the same fate. The Lord is wise. Our Father is wise. The death of Abel was not the end. The Lord had other ways to accomplish the divine plan that was created for us. Another son came which was designated to be the line through which our Savior would be born. This was Seth. We don't know if or how many other sons that were good or evil that were born to Adam. In this story it is not important. It is not the focus. The focus is on the way that the Lord has provided for us to progress, and part of that was that there was a chosen one who would come and atone for us. This would save us from both physical and spiritual death. The line was provided genealogically, even though there was an attempt to thwart it from the beginning. That the Lord's plans cannot be thwarted is one valuable lesson from all of this, another is that the Lord will always provide a way. There also many other lessons that can be learned from this. I don't think it is really important where Cain and Abel's place of birth order really is, though it can make for interesting trivia and discussion, the important part is what the story says and discusses.

This could work, but I have over 500 students in the undergrad classes (edit for clarity: For the department overall) and limited time. The reason they write papers in the first place was to have them answer these types of questions, getting them to do the studying on their own, without taking up more class time to go over it. Office hours would be for those who had problems with these things to get more in depth, but normally I don't have most of the students going to these (or even one or two during the beginning of the semester). Graduate students are not what I'm worried about currently (we work much more closely with them, and generally are familiar with their writing style. If that changes drastically, that could raise questions though). I've seen stories of other professors trying to get students using these ChatGPT things and stories where they were mistaken and accused the students falsely. I don't want to be that type of paranoid professor. At the same time, students who use this are cheating themselves as well. Eventually if they wish to go into graduate studies they will need to write a thesis and papers with more overview by a professor. If they do not gain the skills when they are undergraduates, it could really hurt them later. Of course, that's assuming this entire AI thing doesn't revolutionize the entire discourse. It could be that this entire AI thing eventually becomes the TOOL to use rather than our own ways of doing it presently (Sort of how the computer replaced the typewriter). I can't predict the future, but it seems a little bothersome to me currently. I can't tell the difference, if they are actually using it or not (possible no students are, but with the prevalence of stories I have heard coming out, I would be surprised if there was at least a few using it. I wonder how they figure out which footnotes to attach to it though, and how to verify those footnotes actually say what they do?

This is something I've started to try to figure out. I am worried about it. There are different angles of attack various professors are taking to quell cheating. It seems some students are using ChatGPT and other things to write their reports and essays these days. I don't know how to reliably detect what is or is not written by these AI's. The AI detector ideas others have put out there seem to have their flaws. The best I can think of is when they need to write an essay or something similar, to have them take it as a test in the testing center with a 6 hour window... But that defeats the purpose of a lot of the reason to have the reports or essays written. This is especially true when doing Historiography. Does anyone know of a reliable method on HOW to detect if a student is actually using one of these AI's to write their papers rather than the student writing it?

In my position...at this time...probably. It is probably better to respect their decision if I want to continue teaching and researching. Once a repertoire has been created between them and I, then I might be able to explain how my opinion is on certain things, but with respect and gentleness rather than forcefulness. If nothing else, perhaps they will consider my position with respect instead of calling out the clarions for me to be fired immediately. It is probably because I am weak in regards to the things of the world and overly worldly in my desire to have worldly things (such as a house, a car, food, and other such things). For the bold, obviously it is probably better to proclaim repentence and rely on the Lord (much as they did in the ancient scriptures), but I still lack the faith in that regards to go all out and make the sacrifices necessary I suppose. I'm not sure that boldness to that degree is the right path today for most of the young people who are in this situation or dealing with others in this situation. They seem to be overly hostile to those who may approach them boldly. If they know you and that you respect them and their ideas, sometimes they MIGHT (and yes, that is a MIGHT) respect yours. It depends on the student (or teacher, or professor, or administrator).

I wouldn't go that far, but I do go to Florida regularly for vacations. On the actual topic of the thread currently being discussed... Some of us do not have a choice on the matter in our jobs or publicly. At the university we ARE TO USE the preferred pronouns the students request us to use unless they are vulgar or extreme. In the cases where we think they may be vulgar we have discretion but must bring it up to the administration ASAP to be addressed and to determine whether it truly is vulgar or not. If it is extreme (for example, someone demands that their pronouns are Super/Your Majesty), we have no choice at the moment (though in theory it should have been looked at before the class began) but can bring it up to the administration and THEY will make the determination whether it is appropriate or not. Does not matter if we have tenure or not, these are the rules which we are not bound by. I have had students that are not even on the transition medications request that they are called by transgendered pronouns (pronouns of a different gender than what they were born as). It doesn't matter, we use the terms they request as a matter of respect towards the students. I imagine this is becoming more standard at many of the colleges and universities in the United States these days. Some probably have it more strictly enforced, some less. I imagine some jobs are also having these types of instructions for employees. I don't know of anyway that someone in this type of position would be able to avoid these rules unless they decided to quit. I DO feel that when you use someone's preferred pronouns (as long as they are not in the extremes) that they tend to give you more respect and listen better to what you say. In that regards, if I ran into someone at Church I would probably still adhere to the same idea, though it would be a little bit more difficult. It kind of goes against my grain to do it, BUT, I also know that it is more respectful to respect their choices, even if I feel they are wrong choices, than to try to do something they've probably experienced many times previously and make them angry. It's a hard area to deal with. I probably also feel a little more pressure in public because, it is expected of me in my job. What I do publicly COULD also be held against me in my employment as well (yes, what professors do in their public life sometimes has ramifications on their university life). There are some places and areas where the freedom to choose what you want to or feel like you should do in this arena are quickly closing off.

It was my understanding that Dungeons and Dragons is at an all time high with how many are playing it or participating in it. I think it also just came out with a movie...didn't it? I know there are a dedicated group of university students that play it and the amount of times they have reserved at the student center to play it has risen dramatically over the past year. It seems they have several groups playing now and it's being advertised quite regularly. I HAVE noticed that there seems to be a bit of an overlap between those playing this and games like it and the LGBTQ+ crowd these days though.

I would say...very easily. There are other majors that also allow you to type VERY long responses to very short questions... 🙂

I agree when we take it in the most direct manner and interpretation (And that is normally the one I use...I provide the following only to show that though we probably should take the more conservative interpretation for ourselves, perhaps we should not be as harsh on others if ever in a leadership position and someone has difficulties)... Though there IS another interpretation of the scripture that makes it a little easier. When using the word lust, it is the idea that if they had the opportunity to do so, they WOULD do so. That they actually DESIRE it strongly to the point that they WISH they had such. It is the same type of terminology that lust has been utilized in the past for other items. A more understandable idea is the LUST for riches. When one lusts for riches it isn't just looking at wealth and saying..gosh darn..that looks nice. It is actually wishing you had it and if you had the opportunity, you wouldn't turn it away, you would actually take and keep those riches. It is where you have already determined in your heart that if you had the opportunity to do something or gain something, you would do something or gain it. You just have not had the opportunity as of yet (if ever).

I see it somewhat differently. I feel that the LDS ideas of the plan of salvation is the ONLY one where the Love of our Father is unconditional, as some would put it. The ONLY WAY to not go to heaven is to directly reject the plan of salvation, and choose to fight against it and join the enemies who wish to destroy it, the Lord, and heaven itself. Otherwise, you get some sort of degree of glory in the end. However, the problem lies within our inherent ability to choose. If given the ultimate power, will it corrupt us? That's what this life on earth is really about. What would we choose, what will we choose, if given our free agency. In accordance with that, could we be trusted to do what is right? In the end, it comes down to what WE choose, not what the Lord chooses. He merely has the reward reflected upon what we have already chosen. A Parent can have unconditional love for their child, but if the child chooses to live in prison regardless of what the parent may want, would a good parent who loves their child force their child to live with them instead? If a parent would love for their child to live closer to home (we'll call home...Utah), but their child REALLY wants to live in Georgia instead...would a loving parent force that child to live in Utah or closer to Utah than what the child wants? Sometimes love requires us to let the child be where they want to be when they have become and adult. Free Agency allows that child to go where they want to go. Of course, some of my views may not have the same interpretation as others. There is much in the gospel that probably can be interpreted in different ways.

I feel that media is getting much more brazen on it's attacks on the family and it's portrayal of immorality. It still tries to do it under the guise of "family friendly" in many cases (for example, Disney's animated movie, "Strange Worlds"), but in others it has become much more blatant and obvious.

Very late reply to this, but I want to say, I agree. Most of the US is far richer than they perceive and far more fortunate than they realize. Personally, I feel I should worry about my own selfishness and though not high on the US standards, in relation to much of the rest of the world I would probably be considered extremely blessed. Upon a re-read of the thread, I felt I should clarify a little bit more on my own position. The Lord is rather clear on his condemnation of the rich. The difficulty comes in the interpretation of that. If we look at how Brigham Young or other prophets dealt with it, IN THEORY, others in the thread that state that having riches alone are not the thing that condemns you are correct in that statement. It is actually selfishness, or in this matter, the LOVE of riches/money that is the problem. It is putting one's own desires over that of others. Those who have riches and then do as the Lord asked of the rich young man (donate all he has...though perhaps not that extreme, but donate and give to the poor as Mosiah states, not blaming them but rather giving as they ask) will cease to be wealthy. They may be comfortable, but they won't be the "rich" as we may consider it in the US. In fact, the ideal society has no rich OR poor among them (as per the Nephites when they were in their peaceful and wonderful state after the Lord's visit for many years). There are circumstances where someone may have riches, but unable to actually use those riches. They still must not really care for the wealth or riches other than to help others and to use those riches to either further the Kingdom of the Lord, or to help those who are not as well off. I've found that there are VERY few who are on the wealthier side that would do that, and zero who are on the EXTREME side of wealth (such as the Billionaires of the United States and others) who will actually give money to others without the expectation of some sort of return (as in gaining power, position, or other items over others). Most don't get in that position because they are loving of their fellow man. In fact, even the common folk (or, those who are not wealthy in US standards) still have our own greed. We have items that we treasure, but we SHOULD be willing to give ALL we have, even forsaking mother and brother, father and daughter, in order to attain the Kingdom of the Lord. So, yes, in reality it is the LOVE of riches, but you will rarely find someone who is actually rich (for then they would eventually cease being rich) who does not also have that love of riches. In the United States, in general, in order to GET rich, you have to seek that wealth and do some very strong handed things in order to actually be rich. You have to seek the riches. Most of those seeking the riches are not seeking the riches to help the poor, they are seeking riches to get a bigger house, a nicer car, a better retirement, or many other things that have nothing to do with helping the poor and furthering the Kingdom of the Lord. In this way, being rich is normally synonymous with loving riches. In many scriptures it appears to also keep with this congruity between the ideas, and thus it is FAR easier simply to say, the Lord has condemned the rich (or at least those who remain rich as they will not part from those riches...lest they cease to be rich). It should also be noted that as per the Book of Mormon, in the ideal society there are NO RICH among the people, nor are their poor, but it seems more a measure where people have what they need and are happy.

I didn't know Drag Queen story hour was so prevalent. This occurred in Pocatello, Idaho? I was unaware of this. That's a rather large LDS stronghold (high in Church membership) so, unexpected to me that it would occur there. I had heard of this happening on one area, but was unaware that this was happening all over the nation (Drag Queen story hour). When did this start becoming a thing?

Despite people thinking this is a slap on the wrist, I think this was the maximum fine they could level. Slap on the wrist or not, this is the highest amount they could fine from the little I know of the situation (haven't read the papers, or looked into it more deeply than what I've read on this thread).

This could be funny, but even though I am seen as a Liberal here, in some of the Church venues I would probably be seen as an ULTRA conservative in regards to church policy and doctrines. I would say that the Church has been seen as going not just moderate, but actually rather liberal over the past few years in these circles. Despite me supporting the prophet fully in their measures to protect the lives and health of members, I can also see that there have been problematic things that started prior to the Covid-19 outbreak that are causing some deep rifts in the membership of some groups. Covid-19 issues exacerbated (were more of a catalyst than a cause) with some of these individuals. The issues were already there and the sentiment simmering. I have no solution overall, except to say that the Gospel is true and to hold onto it like the Iron Rod. It may be that we are already in, or it is soon coming, where there will be a great sifting between wheat and tares as has been talked about.

Out of State tuition in some places runs close to 50K a year. (so, around 47K where I'm at). In state is around 27K). That will be around 200K for 4 years. Math is not my forte (not a Math teacher, and definitely not a Math professor). I think that runs around 251K at 5% in 5 years. That would be around 10K a year in interest. These are newly graduated college students, not someone already situation in a career. Average starting salary is $55,260 a year for students getting out of college. Average Rent (in a local area) is around $2000/month so around 24K a year. Average home price is around 450K. The area I'm looking at is cheaper than some locations. For example, in Los Angeles the average rent is 2,786/month. That is around 33K a year. This does not take into other expenses such as Car Payments, insurance, health insurance, food, utility bills and other items. I can imagine those who make below the average could be having a hard time making payments above paying the interest. On the otherhand, those making above the average should be able to budget and pay off those loans when looking at the above figures if they do not have a family they have to consider.

I have a different idea that I would like instituted (But has NO support from either party). If a business pays somebody so low that the employee has to get welfare or social subsidies to survive...THAT COMPANY PAYS BACK DOUBLE OR TRIPLE of whatever the government gives to that person. I imagine if a company finds out that they could actually pay someone fairly for a cheaper amount than what they would under a government program that did this, they would start paying higher wages by default. Right now, we ARE paying welfare FOR walmart and other companies. I say, instead of supporting those companies off of OUR government money, make THEM pay. Either they change course, or we actually MAKE MONEY off social subsidies. The other factor of course, is the larger number of people who are old and on Medicare these days. I actually qualify for it and CAN use it (most seniors do). I try not to (I have insurance through the university), but have had to resort to using it once or twice (to help cover the entire cost of a hospital visit, insurance only covers around 80% these days...thanks ACA...used to be 100% prior to those changes).

Well, the current situation could be seen as caused by the inflationary measures put in during the Trump term. In that light, seeing we are in what some would call a soft recession, they've done remarkably well THUS FAR (meaning, it could come crashing down at anytime) of preventing a true recession. They've (THUS FAR) managed to navigate the narrow gap between driving the economy to a full on recession while still trying to curb inflation. I don't know whether they will succeed or not. I know that despite the gas companies best efforts to boost gas prices in favor of the Republicans, and other manipulations, I paid only 2.67/gal at the pump this past week to fill up. Seeing how bad it could be, that's not terrible (once again...THUS FAR). Trump organized the deal to pull out of Afghanistan. Not sure why this is placed on Biden. That's Trumps deal. He was going to pull them out faster and sooner if he could have as well. Trump also was trying to pull the US out of NATO. It has also been felt that if he had been President, very little aid would have been given to the Ukraine and more favor towards Russia. Europe MIGHT be embroiled in a War with the Russians right now if he had been in charge, though without any help from the US. I actually think the US is in a really good position right now. It is not often that one of our major threats to our society will be wasting it's resources on another nations. We can spend money and equipment (but not even our top equipment) without losing American lives, while costing a major enemy of the United States to waste their resources on a War against someone else. That's always a win. Instead of another Vietnam we get a UK in 1940 (though, hopefully it doesn't turn out like that war because eventually we got drawn into it). Transportation is an interesting situation. I think the news focused a LOT on those spy balloons to take attention away from the fact of what was happening in Ohio at that very same time. The Balloons were alarming, but what has happened in Ohio seems extremely terrible. I think the Biden administration was trying to avoid a black eye on that front. Many will point out that it was the Trump deregulation that led to this accident most likely (and I agree) but Trump has NOT BEEN president for 2 years at this point. It also seems that when Biden offered assistance, the Governor of Ohio turned him down (so, it appears Biden TRIED to help, but was rejected). What IS true is that when Rail workers were wanting to strike, the Biden administration put an end to that with some very strong threats. Some of those things the workers were wanting to strike over may have helped avoid the Rail tragedy that recently happened. In that light, this is DIRECTLY on the Biden administration, whether they want to admit it or not. Add on top of that the Christmas fiasco with Southwest, I'd agree, Transportation is having a rough time right now. I'd say that is definitely a black eye for the Biden administration currently...whether they want to admit it or not. I'd say there is MORE Civility and unity than there was under Trump. Now, the rifts in the Republican party (how many times did they take up that Speaker of the House vote because they couldn't agree) are probably a bigger concern right now, or so I would think. One of the things I enjoy right now is that we don't have an prolific and blatant (and unsorrowful of it) adulterer in the White House. I didn't appreciate Clinton being of a low moral fiber. Having someone of even lower moral fiber didn't really sit well with me. (Obama also was rumored to be of low moral character prior to his marriage as well...I would really appreciate having Presidents who respected morality and things of that nature). I don't have a problem with Biden (you can even point to me and say he is my president...yes, I voted for him. If the Republicans had a better candidate such as Marco Rubio or someone more in line with a traditional Republican ideal, I might have leaned more that way, but in comparison between Biden and Trump...I'd probably choose Biden any day of the week). I think he's doing a fine job as a middle of the road President. He hasn't done anything I see as really far left or right. I DO wish he'd change the taxes back to actually taxing the rich again, and perhaps take a look at taxes (they should have done it when they controlled the House and Senate. They didn't which goes to show they aren't that much better than the Republicans in that regards either) and how they were designed to have the tax breaks expire on the lower tax brackets (as designed so if Trump lost they would not be renewed) while keeping the Tax breaks on the higher tax brackets. Seeing how the divisions between wealth are only being exacerbated with very little gain on the lower end of the tax brackets (which is why inflation is hitting many so hard, while those on the higher end really aren't feeling it's effects as much), the Democrats SHOULD have prioritized revising the tax code when they got into office. I think we have a good balance right now between a Conservative Supreme Court, a divided Congress, and a moderate Democrat as the President. It could be SOOO much worse. (for example, imagine someone on the FAR left as the President right now, or an Ultra Liberal Supreme Court). If anything I think I am more bitter against the Republicans for saying they stand for morality, but then doing nothing regarding some of the more drastic immorality issues in our society today. They COULD have taken action on but have not. With the court as it is, there's never been a better time for it, but I feel they are just going to fritter it away, or are actually complicit in the same immorality despite having many say they stand for moral fiber. PS: The only one I'm seeing in the News making an OPEN stand right now is DeSantis. I may not agree with what he is doing in many fronts, but he IS the ONLY one I see actually talking about some of these things and making an open stand in regards to it.

I don't view you as a stick in the mud by any shot. I have a large swath of things I do not watch. If you are a stick in the mud I imagine I am far worse in that regards towards entertainment in our modern world. On a related but different note, I recently got a Kindle (it is a Kindle Scribe. I like how large it is, but I don't think I'll ever use the note taking attachment to it). In excitement i have spent FAR too much money on it recently. I share it with a grandchild who seems to have taken a liking to it. This is a good thing. I received around $500 of gift cards to use to buy books on it. I've had to consider what books to buy and if they are children appropriate as well. I have found that I have avoided books that have even a hint of adult items in them (for example, Robin McKinley was one that was suggested that we read or buy, but after some research it appears that she has some material which I did not feel comfortable allowing on the device, especially one that a grandchild of mine would also have the possibility of reading). It has really made me think more deeply on what would also be appropriate for me to have on the device to read. For fun fiction I read Tarzan in my youth, but there are some items I don't feel would be good for the grandchild to read. If it is not appropriate for the grandchild, it probably isn't appropriate for me. We have gotten some of the OZ books, The Charlie Bucket series (though I understand it was rewritten recently, I am unsure if we have the original or rewrites now), Narnia and some Beverly Cleary books. The Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit, and the scriptures as well. Jane Austin novels, and one of my wife's favorite books (I've never read it yet), the Neverending story. 101 Dalmations, the Enchanted Forest Chronicles, The Biff Brewster Series (a series I enjoyed in my youth), Boxcar Children, A Wrinkle in Time, Mr Wickers Window, and several Classics such as Twenty Thousand Leagues under the Sea, Winnie the Pooh, and A Christmas Carol. It is interesting how much more I take into consideration on what I actually want to have on the device when I also know a child will also access it...and I think that's a good thing. A talk (I cannot recall who exactly gave it, it was decades ago in General Conference) talked about movies and said, to the effect, that what is not appropriate for one of our little children to watch is probably not appropriate for us to watch. That has stuck with me through the decades after hearing it. I travel abroad and they do not always have the rating systems that the United States does, but keeping this advice in mind has always helped me make wiser decisions in what media to consume. Now, with an actual child using the same device I do, has helped bring it home much more directly to me. I take the material into consideration much more deeply than I think I would have on my own.

There is one singular item I have objected most to. It is the one that I also object about with the prosperity gospel doctrines. It is the idea that the Lord never had bad words or was against the rich. This is a false teaching in my opinion. One of the most famous (but hated by many rich LDS folks [or those who wish to be so] and prosperity preachers) is "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." They try to explain it away (for example, trying to use a gate in Jerusalem's common slang term of the time, but knowing of whom the Lord was teaching and the context, it is a meaning hidden to the rich who assume such, but obvious to those who would not even be using the gate as to what he was alluding to. It is a common example of a double meaning so that those who were not among his followers would see one meaning while the actual meaning relavant to those who were his followers would be obvious). It's the most famous, but not the ONLY one, of which there are several among his teachings. Lazarus's story is another rather well known adage of this teaching. Yes, he pointed out hypocrisy, but the point I specifically was contesting was that you appear to state that the Lord did not condemn those who were rich. I can see it from the viewpoint of condemning those who valued riches (such as the Rich man) and set their hearts so upon riches that they could not give up their riches in order to receive the Lord's fullness, but seeing the mockery I have received in this thread, and how you seem to not contradict that's what you meant, that does not seem what you meant either. If you didn't mean to say what the prosperity gospel preachers state on these things... What exactly do you mean? You've stated this several times in the thread thus far trying to say the Lord did not condemn those who were rich. His words (in the KJV, other translations have slight variations, but we use the KJV) are rather EXPLICIT in his condemnation of rich men. Your statement would appear to be exactly the same reasoning Prosperity teachings use. They appear to state the exact same thing you seem to be stating in regards to the wealthy. I pointed out though, that it could be that as a member of the Church you may not be familiar with their teachings, even if your statements seem to be a reflection of what they are stating. This means as a member you probably are NOT quoting them or using them as the foundation of your statements (or did you MISS that?). Thus, I assume I must have misunderstood. Your response SEEMS to double down on the idea that the Lord did not condemn those with Riches and state a simple reading of the New Testament would make this obvious. It does NOT seem obvious to me and in fact seems to be the exact opposite of what he stated. In fact, the closest I can come to anyone in the scriptures actually CONDONING being rich is found in the Book of Mormon, and is not actually condoning it, but that we seek them to help others...not ourselves. If we use them then, in the way taught by Brigham Young, or as it was utilized in the New Testament, we no longer really are rich then, but use it to enrich our neighbors and the entire congregation. We USE those riches to feed the hungry, to clothe them, to liberate the prisoners (most likely in reference to debtors prisons, but could also be applicable to other forms of imprisonment), to help the sick...etc...etc...etc). They would lift ALL to their level. In this, one could say they were wealthy, but in these situations there would be no "rich" or "poor" per se, as they all would be equally lifted up relevant to each other. I view the idea that the Lord condoned rich men, those with riches, and would support that obtaining and keeping riches are not an obstacle to obtaining kingdom of heaven (or ignoring that entire parable) as a false idea. The idea of the Lord condoning riches is popular among those in the Prosperity doctrine who have their hearts set on riches...even if they are not rich themselves (but several of those preachers are IMMENSELY wealthy). Hence why I spoke out against it. I have tried to do the Christian thing in that I DID apologize and state I must be mistaken. In return I have been mocked, jeered at, and ignored in regards to what exactly it was that was actually meant (and thus far, it really does appear that you are saying that the lord never condemned or spoke out against the rich). As I said before, I must be mistaken, but I really don't understand WHAT you are saying then. It REALLY sounds as if you are saying the Lord When, from my reading of the scriptures it seems he not only did so, but did it EXPLICITLY so in several situations.

I have run into a problem similar to this. It seems if I haven't logged in within two or three weeks (I normally only use Tools for Church functions as I am not a BIG tablet user if I don't have to be, and the tablet I use for the Church applications is dedicated solely for use with the Church callings) it will require me to log back in. It also needs to update after around one or two weeks. I think it needs to update in order to Sync (I'm not sure, I'm not a computer guy). If it fails to update it may have trouble syncing and it may have trouble with log in as well from what I recall. I try to keep mine updated now at least every two weeks. It then syncs up as well. I know last update was just this past Sunday for my Tools and it logged me out automatically. I didn't have any trouble logging back in after that, but it didn't sync until it updated.