JohnsonJones

There was a game one of my kids played a while back when they were in college. It was on a computer. It was a space game where you flew ships and the bad guys were cats. They were lions or tigers that were humanoid or something. The Cats race started with a K. The Kit/Kitz/Kitzelf reminds me of that. That could be cool to go with for a day or two just for the fun of it, though not something I'd probably want to use beyond that. That is, if it meant you were like the cat or that cat race type thing. Just for fun on my part, not a permanent thing. For those who wanted to have it more permanently though, what exactly do those refer to. What gender is that exactly? I have heard of the others, though some of them not in practice (at least not yet. Students have a wide range of diversity).

I'll mirror the question.

I believe I said I may have misunderstood and apologized. This is the statement What exactly is that statement meant to mean? I stated I must have misunderstood, but no one has actually CLARIFIED it. There are those that can laugh and pat themselves on the back for their ingenuity which they feel is blatantly obvious to them while mocking those who are not part of their group understanding, but there is a REASON I misunderstood it. After I have admitted that I must have misunderstood what was said (and I think I expressed what I understood from it explicitly well) why did no one come around and explain it then? In general, the Lord DID condemn those with money and societal position (though seen in context due to how those in such positions and with such wealth generally act and in accordance of condemning those types of actions). I mentioned the prosperity gospel (though clarified this later as it became obvious there was at least one person who did not understand how the prosperity gospel is related to what I posted). This type of teaching is something taught by a few other Christians, popular among some mega churches including those on TV these days. This statement is similar to something right out of one of their sermons. Obviously, someone not familiar with their teachings would not be quoting them. However, it's similarity is why there would be some out there that would confuse the above statement with saying what I thought it did, because it mirrors what some prosperity gospel preachers would say in justifying why wealth is righteousness. So, as I said, I must have misunderstood and I apologized. It would SEEM though, that the Christian thing to do in that instance would be to explain what was actually meant instead of simply laughing that someone didn't understand the intent of what was written.

The prosperity Gospel is a popular teaching among Christians today. Simply look it up to see what it teaches. This is not something necessarily within the Church, but among Christiandom in general these days. As far as for here, I've heard MANY times from multiple individuals about how they think (against all evidence from Church historical records on how it worked) that the law of consecration allows them to keep their material possessions. That they will simply be given an item which gives them "stewardship" rather than the Church doing what it traditionally did when the Law of Consecration was active, what it does now in regards to those who practice a more limited version of it, and what the New Testament writes about it. They think that the inequality found among Church members today with the rich and poor will continue if we are ever called to start the Law of Consecration again. They forget that there are many members in other nations which are far less economically set than in the US. Even today, the US (and a lesser degree the European) economies support the rest of the Church in poorer nations. If we were to all be equal under one vast law, the money being transferred from US members to poorer members would be far more than many probably imagine, and what we would be left with would probably be more in what we actually NEED rather than what we currently have. What we need is probably FAR less than what many here have indicated they will be allowed to keep should the Law of Consecration and the United Order ever become enforced in full on the Church again. I've long held this as well. When people have trouble with Church leaders today I point out that even the Lord in his time recognized who the leaders of the Jewish religion were at the time. He followed them as well as got ordinances under the proper authority (such as baptism). In that same light, even if one has problems with how the Church is being led or policies or whatever complaints someone has, they should follow the Lord's example during his mortal ministry. He recognized the Church and the leaders thereof, so should we no matter what our personal feelings are. It is something I think many who fall away from the Church do not notice or realize at times, especially when I see them complaining (this is not applicable to those here, I am talking about elsewhere when I talk about those who are complaining in such a manner). See the top of this post. Again, see above. I read this...and it sounded like you were writing in support of the Rich and powerful being those favored by the Lord. From your response I must have misunderstood what you were referring to here and I apologize if any offense was taken. However, the commentary on my own weaknesses (which I admit are abundant) which I made in reference to my own personal obstacles in regards to what I SHOULD feel and do still stand.

I find it interesting that those who have money tend to try to paint the Lord as having come from Money and his followers from the wealthy. Fishermen were not necessarily the wealthy, and having a boat or boats was no more a signifier of wealth than having a rowboat is today (in fact, it would depend on the size of the boat, but if we utilize the story where they were afraid of the storm overwhelming them, it probably was NOT one of the bigger boats or those used by the wealthy as the storms in that sea were not strong enough to really pose any sort of threat to that type of boat). (PS: Edit - Another topic for another time, but the entire stormy sea episode has brought on a lot of interesting theories because those storms on the inner seas were not really that much of a threat unless in a very weak or small boat. Even then they normally are not that big of a deal. This has led to some thinking the lord traveled all over Europe because the type of storm that would really threaten to capsize a boat would be more likely found in the Mediterranean rather than the seas generally thought to be where the Lord traveled. It is an interesting topic, but enough of that, it's an entirely different topic for a different thread). It is true the Lord took followers from all walks of life, including those who had more money, but one would have to be blind to the writings of the New Testament to think that the Lord was a supporter of those with wealth and power. It is a popular thing amongst the prosperity gospel today to try to say it was, but I would say that those who truly read the words of the Lord will see such teachings are an anathema to the actual gospel as the Lord taught. Depending on the writer, some even hypothesize one of the REAL reasons he was crucified was that he was a threat to the social order at the time within the Jewish community. He was a very real threat in his criticism of those in power and those with riches that they wanted him dealt with. The thing was that he was sent for ALL people, which also included the wealthy and powerful. The wealthy and powerful were unlikely to listen to him or heed what he said. Even those that were righteous did not have the desire to give up that power or wealth. As we see from the rich man, he did NOT want to give up his wealth. This was NOT as some imagine it here, if it were, the rich man probably would have had no problem doing what the Lord asked. It was not that he give his wealth and then he gets it back rubber stamped by the Lord as his to be presiding over. It was he was to give it all away and then come follow the Lord without ANY of it. As the Apostles, he was to go without food or shelter of his own, relying on the goodness of Heaven to provide for whatever it was he needed. This is NOT the teaching of one who is telling people to be wealthy and keep their wealth. It is not stated, but some could assume, that those who were from the upper class did not retain their wealth either, but donated it away and followed the Lord anew in poverty as humble followers depending on the grace of Heaven to provide for their needs. It was not Peter who funded all their expeditions, but the money that they had somehow received and was kept (some say Judas was the one who was the keeper of funds amongst the twelve until the betrayal). We do not know the education of his apostles or his disciples. Once again, we can ASSUME that they had been taught in the way of Jewish tradition (in which case, they would have been educated to a degree, as all faithful Jewish people were), but that does not necessarily put them as upper class or wealthy or powerful. I find one of the most pernicious lies amongst Christians today is the prosperity gospel and it's attempt to teach that wealth is a reflection of righteousness and righteousness is rewarded by money. Yes, the Lord was sent for all men, even the 1%, or even the top .1% of people. If we read the New Testament however, we find it full of examples of WHY those who were in power and those with riches were unlikely to follow the Lord while a majority of those who followed him were those who were of the 99% (probably because 99% is a FAR GREATER percentage of the population just to begin with). There are multiples stories regarding this. There are multiple examples in the New Testament for this. Those who were more likely to listen to him were those who were humble. It is better to be humble from the start, but more often then not (as we see from Alma) many of those who are humble are humble because they are forced to be due to poverty, illness, or other items which physically humble us. In essence, he was sent to teach to those who would listen and those tended to be the humble rather than those who were less inclined to be of that attitude. Those who are humble on this earth are many times seen to be cursed due to the afflictions that they deal with. They are despised while the prideful who have power and wealth are held up as the heroes. It is the dynamic of the natural man. Of interest, there are two stories about a man named Lazarus. Are they the same man? Perhaps, perhaps not. If they are, we can tell a LOT about the Lord's mortal status in regards to wealth and power, as well as how the Lord felt about Lazarus compared to the man with riches. I don't know of my self who will be in heaven or not. I can figure general ideas from what the scriptures tell us, but in the end only the Lord knows and only he is the judge. I can only hope that I am not among the hypocrites, the sinners, and all others who will not make it. We can only hope our own souls will be worthy at the judgement seat. I know I have problems even with the little wealth I have, I can only pray that I would be strong enough to forsake it all and follow the Lord if given the opportunity. In some ways, the above can be seen as retrospective into my own fears. Am I willing to give all I have to follow the Lord? Do I treasure worldly goods and wealth far too highly, or do I recognize what is really of worth in this life and what will be of worth in the life to come?

My vote is NOT sleep paralysis. There was one time when I was waking up from sleeping and I was attacked. In this case it hurled me across the room into the closet doors and was just as Joseph Smith described in his experience otherwise. It was very real and very dark. It feels as if the darkness is trying to destroy you. I cried out to the Savior, and it was his power that saved me in that instance. After that, of course I was dropped and fell as I struggled to understand what had just happened. For me I know it was NO dream as I was awake the entire time. However, it DID occur right as I was waking, and I would think that perhaps when one is in a stupor or sleep that it would make a prime time for an attack. My experience woke me up just about immediately. I've heard people talk about sleep paralysis, but that doesn't account for being tossed across a room or being absolutely awake instantly (like, wide awake in that instance). Otherwise, it was similar, it was as if I could not move and it was all I could do to try to cry out to the Lord. I feel that those who have faith in the Lord and turn to him are protected by him and the angels of heaven. When we ask for his help and ask for him in those situations, help will come.

Interesting thing, the idea of an Alpha Wolf (as it was originally presented and taken in context towards humans) was dis-proven by the very researcher who presented it years ago. In a like manner, there aren't really Alpha (and especially not Sigma) males in that same light either. Let's focus on the wolves though, because what DID get shown is FAR more interesting. There IS a sort of Alpha leader of each pack, but not what these types that talk about Alpha Males think it is. The pack is normally composed of a family of animals. These families are led by the "alphas' of the pack. Who are these Alphas? It is NOT necessarily even a male. The Alphas, or leaders of the pack, are the parents. The PARENTS are the ones leading the pack. The only times when the "Alpha" male paradigm even appears is with wolves in captivity that have no families. It appears more in those that do NOT have their parent's guidance (in that light, it is more like Lord of the Flies, or the gangs that wander with youth who defied, denied, or never had, parental guidance). They are normally not in a good way. This is actually VERY important I think. I think it relates to humans. If we want success, we NEED families which have parents. We need parents that are involved in their families and LEAD their families. Just like the wolves, if we are to have success, we need successful leaders. Those leaders need to be parents. Without those, we tend to have packs where the strongest (even if it is the dumbest) or best looking tend to take charge, many times to the detriment of all involved. Just like Wolves we need to have the parents involved to have a successful pack (family). The TRUE alphas in society are those who are Parents that Lead their families in righteousness and morality (IMO).

I think it is a tough question. It is even tougher because on this particular subject, I admit, I AM RELIGIOUSLY influenced. I'd say I am actually HEAVILY religiously influenced. Because of this, I am AGAINST a LOT of what the society is trying to push on Minors. I read an article recently on Utah (I think Utah just passed a law or something if I recall right) where a woman who had transitioned to being a man had transitioned back. In the article it noted something to the effect that the percentage of youth who now see themselves as trans has shot up by over 4000% of what it was. This is massive. The individual noted that this couldn't just be a natural thing happening, but more of a fad or social pressures. The individual also noted how they had transitioned and then tried to transition back and had found very little support. There are many things I dislike about Rick DeSantis, but one thing I agree with him on is his actions to protect children against these types of social pressures and troubles. I ALSO ADMIT this is due to my OWN religious bias. As for the article itself, it appears to be logically solid. If someone feels supported in whatever choices they make (in general), they will feel more confident and happier overall. Those who are not supported tend to have a worse temperament overall. It makes sense than that those who are trying to transition or want to would have better outcomes if they are supported. It makes sense that if a MINOR really is a transgendered type individual, that if they can prevent the onset of puberty and then have it reset to whatever gender they wish, they could appear more as that gender later on and have a higher sense that they fit in. The article makes sense to me. I would agree that everyone deserves quality medical care. The problems I have with the conclusion in the article do NOT stem from anything scientific (and perhaps that means I am also somewhat of that fanatical religious right), but from my own religious convictions. I do not feel this is the type of care we should ALSO apply towards minors, though scientifically evidence seems to point that doing so may actually be beneficial.

To be honest, I think (this is a PERSONAL feeling, I have no evidence to back it up right now) that more of us from our generation knew about guns and were comfortable around them then there is among the younger generations today. I don't recall many school or mass shootings either. Something has DEFINITELY changed. If we talk about the police, ironically it may be the UNIFICATION of police training that has changed. It used to be that there could be a 4 month training school, but there were really no standards. There was no "police" culture nationwide. There was no massive training in certain areas. I think one area that increased was the focus to protect the officer at all costs, rather than the focus on sacrifice for the public at all costs. There has been an increase on the focus to preserve Police lives. This is not inherently a BAD thing, but I wonder if it has had unplanned repercussions in how they are teaching a new trainee to react. I also wonder if more violence in our society is due to less people knowing and understanding about guns. Instead of learning they are tools to be used (like a hammer or other item) they don't get taught, see things from TV and movies (which are violent) and then go out and buy guns planning violence rather than how guns should be utilized.

Note I said first world. On your chart itself it appears the US has more than any first world nations and more than many third world nations. Luxembourg is the first one listed on your chart after the US (First 1st World nation listed). It had ONE shooting on average annually. Of course, in relation to it's population, that means that it is at 16.9 comparatively. France on the otherhand had 26 shootings annually which puts it at 3.8% (a factor which means the US has approximately OVER 750% the amount of police killings percentage wise than France. Norway had 1 which puts it at 1.9% meaning the US exceeds it by 1,500%). I'm glad you mentioned France because it has one of the HIGHEST percentages among First World nations for police violence. It IS beaten by Australia (at a whole 6.5%, which comparatively to other first world nations IS sort of a rabidly high number) which still puts the US as having 400% more of a chance to die by police than in one of the other highest police violent states of the First World. Most 1st world nations are nowhere close to the US, and the US beats them (just looking at percentages, if we go by RAW numbers of killed it would look far worse) by factors of 5 to 7 times. If you told me that my chances of dying in a plane crash were 5X greater on one companies airplanes than another...I'd probably NOT choose to fly on that airline. We are closer on par with Mexico's rate (30%) than most other First World nations (and Mexico isn't normally considered first world...and Mexico also has a pretty bad reputation for violence between the police and other groups that have gone wild in vying for control of Mexico recently...probably NOT a good percentage to have a comparison to). In fact, the US compares more favorably to 3rd world nations in police violence than First World. The closest we have would be Luxumbourg, which I noted above. That was due to how low their population size is...and it is ONE death on average per year. ONE. The US figure you are using is 946 which was for the year 2020. That number increased to 1176 for 2022. PS: 2020 had higher numbers of fatalities than 2021 in france (2021 was abnormal from what I can tell, for France), but for the reasons to give France it's abnormally high percentage in relation to what is normal in a First World nation. In addition, France generally scored rather high on it's police killings percentage related to the population in comparison to other First world nations as long as we exclude the United States. We used the 2020 numbers, especially as that is the numbers which were being used for the US for the 28.54% as well). Numbers have actually DECREASED for the US up until 2020, with high's in the 10's reaching over 1500 deaths annually at some points.

Long winded diatribe incoming... I can say in academia, overall, there is a GREAT AMOUNT of disdain for anti-vaxxers. The biggest reason I can tell is that they (anti-vaxxers) are normally ALSO ANTI-SCIENCE. If these people had controlled the way science was, we'd still be without electricity today...or at least that's the sentiment on how STRONGLY these people reject science and scientists. No matter how strongly many of the anti-vaxxers say they are using science or friendly to scientists, it seems to most OF THE ACTUAL SCIENTISTS that these people love are the quacks, the phonies, and those that would tar and feather actual science and scientists. The PROBLEM they see is that many of these anti-vaxxers are also fanatically religious. Because they are fanatically religious the idea is that these individuals see everything through the lens of religion and religious faith. They think that science is actually a RELIGION rather than something else. Thus, everything they disagree with is because they feel it is reliant on it being discovered purely via faith and belief rather than a basis on anything else. If we apply this to something such as evolution, we could say that a fanatical religious anti-vaxxer would say that the only evidence for evolution is because scientists want to believe in it and thus tailor everything they say to support it, sort of like trying to use the Bible to justify whatever you want. Deep down in their hearts they don't believe there are any experiments or hard facts that are used, it really just boils down to faith and belief in something. Thus, the science behind evolution is simply a religion, not anything dealing with facts, evidence, experiments, data, or anything else. In their eyes science STARTS with what it wants to be, and then builds everything else up to support it. Why is this important? Because a LOT of the arguments (especially some in this thread) are ignoring what the scientists and science have been stating from the very start. It was already known there was and could be problems with the vaccine. A prime example is Myocarditis. They had discovered that the vaccine may be responsible for causing this in individuals rather early. In this, the question could be, if this could cause such a thing...why continue it? The idea is that (not the actual numbers) if it caused .01% of those receiving the vaccine to have this reaction, it was still better than if they got the illness. This would mean if 10 million got the vaccine, you could possibly have 1000 people develop myocarditis. That can seem like a large number to some. You get 100 million to get the vaccine that's 10,000 people. When compared to Covid-19 which may have a 1% chance, that means you only have 10,000 people compared to 100,000 people. (funny enough, this logic evades anti-vaxxers. So yes, some may have side-effect, but the numbers would be worse if people simply didn't GET the vaccine, and unsurprisingly, this seems to be backed up by data when comparing those who got vaccinated vs. those who have not been vaccinated over the past few years). THIS is why they continued with the vaccine, because the percentage that could get it were less than those that WOULD get it the course of allowing the illness to affect people. That said, they were still concerned. With the older groups (such as my age group) this was seen as beneficial because our chances of myocarditis were higher than the general population. With young men some nations put out a caution because the chance of the vaccine causing this trouble could actually be HIGHER than what the disease seemed to cause at the time. Now, some of this was seen to not turn out among youth in some of the studies done (and still continuing, but the data returns from the past year don't seem to suggest the chances of myocarditis was as high as originally thought from the vaccine) that have been ongoing. This is just one facet of the misunderstanding people have of science though. People think of science as religion. It is black and white. You are either good or you are not. With physics and the hard sciences this is more true, but not absolute. With softer sciences such as biology this is never true. Things are never black and white. With vaccines, you are never 100% protected or safe. It offers a better chance, but it is never absolute. Even with the shingles vaccine you can still get shingles. You can still get sick. There are exceptions and people who react differently than what is generally seen. In the same way the Covid-19 vaccine was never going to be 100% planned or 100% perfect protection. Scientists never claimed it would be. It was to lessen the impact of Covid-19 overall, give people a better chance of surviving Covid-19, and if we got REALLY lucky (which would have meant enough acceptance of the vaccine so that we could develop herd immunity simply from that and quickly enough) maybe even wipe it out (didn't happen, luckily we didn't have these types of anti-vaxxers when I was young or they would have polio epidemics today as an endemic illness...people like to talk trash about Boomers, but at least we and our parents respected science enough not to be ridiculous anti-vaxxers). The Polio vaccine itself wasn't 100% either. The difference is that people accepted the science and scientists behind it enough that they were willing to unify as a society to take the vaccines. It had a high enough percentage where it DID work that we got herd immunity (at least for now, I hear it is starting to make a come back...which if you ever knew about polio...is actually horrific). Science is never 100% or black and white. This is why science advances, because it isn't `100% solved' and those in science don't just settle that they know everything. It is constantly changing and evolving. This seems to be ignored by many. It is ignored on both sides actually, but overwhelmingly by the anti-vaxxers. Some say that when a crowd or group of people try to accuse one side of something, many times they are just describing themselves. Anti-vaxxers seem to already have their opinion formed. They are simply looking to find things to support their "religious" fanaticism applied towards science. Instead of listening to the majority of scientists out there, they find offshoots (and sometimes these are disgraced offshoots within the scientific community) and then highilght these individuals. This is why it drives academia crazy and why they don't like the anti-vaxxer crowd. The anti-vaxxer crowd isn't actually listening to the scientists or researchers. They are taking fringe individuals or fringe thoughts on the subject and promoting them over the entirety of the rest of academia. (for better understanding, it would be if you had 1000 companies that produced electricity. They had safe electricity that was reliable. Instead of buying their electricity people turned to the ONE person who tried to make electricity and occasionally succeeded, but it could cause forest fires because of unsafe practices, and would go out very often. Worse, they would also turn to the individual who said they could make electricity, but never had produced a single watt of it. They put those two as the ones to buy electricity from above the 1000 other companies out there. It seems wierd and insane, but for some reason a big group of people would prefer either no electricity or unsafe electricty to having safe, reliable electricty. That doesn't mean that there will NEVER be an electrical outage from those 1000 companies, or that nothing will go wrong, but overall they are far more reliable and safe than the two others that many people seem to want to choose). As I said at the start, most of academia that I know seem to have a great disdain for anti-vaxxers. They see anti-vaxxers as anti-science and wanting to tear down science and it's advances rather than actually benefit or even support science and scientists.

I still have worries about Covid-19 as well as other diseases that float around the classrooms and lecture halls. I seem to be doing well right now, which is fortunate. The virus seems to have affected my generation more than some younger ones and so I know several that died from the disease, especially at it's height. None of those who took it seriously, got vaccinated and masked up died that I know of from my personal acquaintances. There were those who were unvaccinated (even some who got Covid once, the second time got them) that passed away unfortunately. The BIGGEST problem probably was the PPP and the forgiveness of it. The amount of money given to people has probably been spent far long ago already, but that PPP...places got millions of dollars (and seeing how some of it was spent, it's on stuff that would directly affect inflation...people buying houses, cars, and other things with that PPP...AND THEN THEY FORGAVE most of it!!!). I find it ironic how many of those PPP welfare businessmen then turn around and complain about College Loan forgiveness. Hypocritical in the highest order there.

If someone is wearing thick clothes (like a really thick winter coat in Utah because it's really cold there) or really high on some drugs Tasers may have minimal effect. People are killed by police with weapons in other nations as well, just not at the numbers that Americans are killed by their police forces. The problem in the US that most see with the Police forces in the United States is that the police "APPEAR" to be more trigger happy then most other first world countries. You have to go to the third world (and in many instances, really bad places in the 3rd world) to find similar statistics of police violence and deaths caused by the police. The questions that people pose is WHY are you so much more likely to die from the police in the United States than any other civilized first world nation by an order of magnitude? Many theories have been floated. Most float around the idea that the requirements to be a police officer are so much lower in the United States than anywhere else. Instead of wanting to have the highest IQ's, some departments actually limit how smart someone might be and refuse to higher those who seem extremely smart. The training in general seems to be a lower standard in regards to de-escalation and relying on your ability to communicate rather than use a weapon. Another is that some nations require a minimum of a four year degree or better just to be a police officer on top of a year or two of training whereas in the US the requirements are far lower. In many departments in the US it is a matter of a 3 to 4 month training course with no other education beyond a High School degree in comparison. Some feel it is a matter of police being too scared and focusing on protecting police officers at the expense of protecting the public. There are a whole bunch of theories, but no one really knows for certain. It could be none of those, or all of those. What it seems to be apparent though is that the United States has a policing problem unique in the First World. Their police kill a significant number of people. Far more than other First world nations by percentage wise. The question is WHY this is occurring and HOW to change this. One problem that DOES seem obvious is that many police departments have no interest in trying to change the status quo. They are happy with the status quo that American Policemen are a bigger threat to their own citizens than most other first world nations police forces. Before change can happen, those who must affect the change must decide that change is needed. Only when they decide to change something for the better and then try to figure out the best way to do it can change actually occur. There are probably some departments out there that are trying to instigate change, but in many instances they are alone in the matter with very little support from their fellow fraternity (or I suppose today, the sorority as well??).

I served with one or two individuals who were foreigners when I was in that were enlisted in the US military. I did not know they could receive partial citizenship rights (though I suppose while they were in, they already had partial rights). As far as I know any who were going after citizenship were going after full citizenship. I would comment more, but most times talking about that period of my life isn't my favorite thing (or even something I normally choose) to talk about (or in this instance, write about).

I am not a big fan of the show, but I suppose it appeals greatly to the younger generation. The titles, the way the characters are written, and other aspects seem to be made to appeal to the Generation X and Y as well as today's youth more than my generation. A LOT of it just seems like fiction to me. Made up. I am probably just not one that is really fond of stuff like that. It seems to have a great deal of appeal to many of the members though and it has been on BYUTV.

I can't do a ton, but I wouldn't mind being called on a mission to do that, as long as I can get my retirement or my housing and food is also covered.

If I recall, even Joseph Smith used materials by those who were not church members. I think one of those he used was Clarke's Bible Commentary (not the official title) when studying the scriptures. Some claim that you can see parallels or similarities between the JST and Clarke, which would not be all the unusual if he utilized it in conjunction with his own studies and seeking for revelation on the what the actual meaning of the passages should be. Just as you mention at the end there, I think the important thing is to make sure you pray and have the spirit with you to guide you in your studies to help you discern what is truth and what is not. We are taught to study from good books (which could also translate to good materials in the instance of you listening to Jordan Petersen's Genesis lectures). Just like reading the apocraphya, there may be good things to learn, but we need the spirit with us to help us discern the good and bad, the truth and what is not, from each other.

In Cochise County? There were Kari Lake loyalists that were in charge of the Ballots (though no one was TECHNICALLY COUNTING the Ballots one could say). The hand recount was headed by the AUTHORIZED REPUBLICAN REPRESENTATIVE Judy Smith representing the Chair (Tyndall). The Democrats had their Chair (Montgomery) present along with 6 others from their party. Lisa Marra (Republican) is the one who actually set up the formation and procedures for this election and claimed in 2020 that it was her proudest accomplishment. The fight was actually between REPUBLICANS in the county (not between Democrats and Republicans) in regards to the validation of the votes. If anything, it was two sides of the Republicans accusing each other of corruption, the Democrats didn't have anything to do with this secret society of gadiantons plotting against those of their own party and the nation. The voting, the hand counts, who was involved, is all on the public record. I don't know WHY people are listening to Fox News or OAN instead of actually looking at the actual numbers, politcal correspondence and information themselves when it is out in the open on the internet.

I don't know what their results were, but I can speak for myself. I say I am one of the resident liberals here many times. That's actually only in relation to how other individuals are. In truth, I actually lean quite conservative. I AM an independent, but my views in general lean conservative in most political aspects. I find myself voting more for democrats recently than I have ever done in my life in the past few years. It is NOT because I necessarily agree with the Democrats. In fact, in many cases I disagree with many of their stances. It's because I Disagree with the Republican candidates even more strongly. It's not over the traditional Republican values, but how extreme many of the Republican candidates have become. Take Marjorie Taylor Greene. I understand why she was elected overall (she comes from one of the areas of Georgia which still has a great deal of white supremacy in it's ranks for example). Her personal actions and morality are not things I agree with nor support. The things she goes to the extreme with politically are also not things I feel comfortable with. I do not feel comfortable nor want to vote for those who seem to be going to the far extremes. It seems that far more Republican candidates are extremists on the FAR right these days beyond anything I can support. This was NOT always so, and in fact, a mere 8 years ago it WAS NOT this way. The way they tear down people who are moral overall for those values instead of going after their political views are another. Raphael Warnock is perhaps one of the more moral candidates in Georgia. He has views I do not support, but he is a strong Christian who espouses many strong Christian views. When they went after him in regards to his morality or Christianity...it does not sit right with me. An even bigger example that people could probably understand is with President Biden. I actually like the President. He is disliked by BOTH sides. The reason is because he is actually a moderate. He isn't far enough to the left so many of his own party despise him. The Republicans on the otherhand seem to hate him simply because he is not a Republican. They try to claim things about him that simply are not attributable to him and then say it's his fault. It really appears it is simply because he is not on the extreme right of the political spectrum. That said, if the Democrats put someone like Ilhan Omar (or some of the others who are far left politically) as their presidential candidate, I most likely would vote for a Republican UNLESS it was an extremists or someone on the extreme far right. Unfortunately, these days, it seems that the Republican candidates are more often these extreme far right politicians rather than anything I would support. They need to put more moderate candidates out there that people like me will actually vote for. They need to actually APPEAL to voters like me (and for that matter, others as well. This entire shenanigance of wanting to take away my Social Security and imposing things that feel like they are threatening my benefits does NOT make me love the Republicans more. It also is probably not making friends with those of our more liberal sided youth either who want those social nets for the elderly). The problem is that while appealing to their base, they are getting candidates that are far too extreme to the right for the rest of the voting populace to support. Their party members need to realize that they need someone more towards the middle rather than those that have gone so far off the deep end we can't even see them from the middle! I think it's a bad situation for the Republicans when those who have typically voted Conservative are no longer a shoo-in vote. They need to realize WHY they are losing the independents and aim more for winning an election rather than simply just winning their party. As I think I said to the effect before the election, it's the independents who help decide the elections. You need them to garner those wins.

The ONLY disfranchisement in Cochise county from not certifying it would have been done by Republicans to Republicans. Republicans have almost 2X the number of voters there than Democrats. There was no doubt who would get those votes. The Republicans controlled the voting, the polls, and the officials OVER it. Those running the show there were Kari Lake loyalists. This is why it makes it such a ridiculous case. The ONLY ones who would be corrupt if there was corruption there would be Republicans and, on top of that, Kari Lake Loyalists on top of that! It's like pointing to yourself and telling the court that you want to accuse yourself of a crime so that you will get a reward. It's like going to a boxing match and then shooting yourself because you think it will help you be declared a winner. The case makes absolutely NO sense at all. If anyone was disenfranchising someone it was Kari Lake and her supporters in that county. The county that had some of her greatest supporters were the ones who were behind everything. They even controlled the polling locations! That county is one of her strongholds! If there was voter fraud there, then it was actually DONE by her people! By losing the votes there the Republicans could actually LOST a seat in congress. It actively HURTS the Republican party if they had not certified the results. So why do this? They didn't DO this because it was actually voter fraud. There IS a conspiracy there, but it's not so secret. The idea is to take somewhere where they have enough control to pull off a stunt like this (so it wouldn't actually work in a place where there may actually be a question, or where Democrats may have won and a question could be raised if there was voter fraud on their part, it HAD to be done in a place where Republicans had enough control of the regulators and others in the process) and make it so that the election results in called into question. If an election is called without tallying all the votes (for example, the votes in the county never get certified) then it legitimately could be said that there was voter disenfranchisement there. The plan then, is that this causes problems for the Democrats. In fact, there WERE problems because of this. IF the Democrats let Kari Lake get away with this it would actually BENEFIT them. Some Democrats actually called to let her have her way. It could cause the Republicans to have less power in Congress. On the otherhand, it sets a dangerous precedence of voter disenfranchisement (the real danger) if they allowed it to happen that could set a pattern for the rest of the Nation to follow in deeply red counties of the United States. Such a crisis could make it so that elections on a national scale could be called into question on their legitimacy if every state had counties that were allowed to simply not certify. The best course of action then was to try to force an honest legal action rather than let it lie (ironically, for once). An election where Red counties controlled by Republicans refused to certify (ironically, these would be counties overwhelmingly Republican that were controlled by Republicans and almost no question of it going to Republican candidates) could ensure a reason that not all votes were counted. In such a case it could force a National Election (for example, the next presidential election) to have a legitimate excuse by Congress to call into question it's actual legitimacy and have it go up for a vote in Congress rather than a vote by the people for who would be President. The gamble is that if Republicans can control this, then they can force a de-legitimization of the public vote and make it a Congressional thing rather than a thing for the people and by the people. It is a way of taking the power of voting from the people and placing it and it's abilities into the hands of a few, particularly those who rule over us currently. THAT was the game Kari Lake is playing and played. Yes, it IS a type of gadianton type thing (a type of secret combination, though not so secret if you really study it), and yes, I would expect that most of those who love freedom and democracy should be outraged at such a KINGMAN type action would be taken, and even more that we have people that support such Kingmen type activity and actions today.

I understood it that you were casting their votes for Democrats for some reason. Not sure why you'd put their votes for Democrats when you seem to be very conservative, but I guess that's one way to shrug the Feds off your trail... From the sounds of it, it seems to have worked for you for the past 30 years so you have that going for you...not sure I would have admitted it so openly after all that time though... (PS: Yes, the was also a joke for those who may not get it). I don't support either party as well. Mine is more that neither party really promotes what I am wanting. The Democrats seem to have tossed morality into the back seat and then dumped it out the side door as they sped off in regards to Chastity and anything dealing with that as well as other moral matters. The Republicans seem to have forgotten the entire ideal they had of smaller but effective government while at the same time also forgetting the balance they had between the social contract and the people. They seem more focused on pure unadulterated Capitalism and greed rather than espousing freedom and virtues. Recently it's gotten even worse with the Republicans. It seems that the ONLY compass they have today is to try to do the exact opposite of what the Democrats are trying to do. If the Democrats promote something that the Republicans claimed they wanted a week prior, suddenly the Republicans do a 180 degree turn and go against it! It's like they have nothing really guiding them anymore! They switch their desires on a dime it seems these days. It wasn't always this way though. It's like the 60s and 70s hit and both parties lost their way. I tend to vote conservatively, generally speaking, but that doesn't mean I see the Republicans being any better than the Democrats as one would put it. The Democrats have gone from Roosevelt (who even consulted with the Leaders of our CHURCH and based HIS social nets and programs off of the Church's system [which invariably were changed later, obviously when looking at them today] in a big impact our church had on our nation due to that) to Kennedy and the Clintons, where as at the same time we went from Eisenhower who I feel did great for all to Trump who seems to be morally the exact opposite of what the Republicans used to stand for. Today I try to vote who I think is honest, upright, and has moral standing but at times it can be difficult, even in local politics. I don't care about the party, I try to care about the person. Sometimes it comes down to who is less evil or immoral than the other rather than who is moral, an unfortunate turn of our politics today.

I didn't watch the video, nor am I from Arizona. What I've read in the News was that there was a Republican district that refused to certify. Ironically, if they refused to certify by the deadline it meant that the Democratic candidate automatically won as those Republican votes would NOT be counted. The CATCH was that if they refused to certify and DEFIED state law by refusing to certify, than it could lead to a crisis. The crisis was NOT made for Arizona, but was to make a point that ALL elections EVERYWHERE could be decertified and counted as unable to be counted (similar to some ideas that were actually done in Germany so that the Nazi party would eventually gain control. Normally do not want to Godwin the thread, but the TREND is actually REALLY BAD when people seem to be taking pages out of the Nazi playbook directly) causing unrest. So, there was the double whammy. The IRONY is that it was a REPUBLICAN district. There was no way it was going to go to the Democrats and no way the Democrats could have changed the direction it was going. The only votes to be discounted were the Republican votes counted by the Republican party leaders over the voting district. This meant that the ONLY corruption there could have been from...Republican leaders. They were basically calling themselves corrupt. It doesn't mean that there isn't Democrat corruption, but the way it's been reported from Arizona isn't the way to try to prove that. This also is the PROBLEM Kari Lake is having. She says all this, but has NO EVIDENCE that can be held up in the court of Law...even from the Republican Judicial side of things. The judge is an appointee of a REPUBLICAN governor, at least from what the news is telling me. This judge dismissed the case, but she IS appealing it. It could go somewhere, it may not. Right now it is up to the courts to decide, but thus far, she doesn't seem to actually be making much headway. IF she is having this much trouble from her OWN party which in theory is on HER side, it means that she has a LONG way to fight.

There could be many different things, until it occurs we may not know for sure. After it happens people will look back and see that it was obvious. Things it may be... 1. I am somewhat skeptical of how much man's influence is on Global Climate Change, but lets say for an instance that the influence man has on Climate Change is tremendous. It may not be simply due to our physical pollution of the earth, but the moral pollution that we have abounding upon it today. It is said in the scripture that the Earth is a living entity. Our sins impact it and some scripture infer that it may groan under the weight of the sins we are committing upon it. We are trespassing it with our own filthiness. It could be that these are also contributing a great deal to the physical changes as the Earth reacts to the moral offenses being committed upon it. In that light, if the temperature eventually rises greatly on an escalating measure, it could get to the point where all life would cease. If it is in response to our sin and immorality, well...the only way to reverse that would be to get rid of that immorality. Cutting it short before our immorality can kill us would be a way that the Lord's coming could preserve all life on the planet. 2. Things have changed very quickly in my lifetime. Things that we would not have been caught dead watching when I was a boy started to be something watched by many people, including many Saints in the 80s. Today, what many Saints watch on TV, listen to on the radio, and consume in their media are what we would have considered extremely sinful when I was young. It is possible that we are seeing the very elect being deceived into consuming media that is the very opposite of what the Lord intended for us to utilize our time doing. 3. We see the world has already come to the point in the Western World where what used to be considered good is now considered evil, and what used to be considered evil is now considered good. Standing for the Church principles as found in The Family: A Proclamation to the World will get you called all manner of names among today's youth. They will consider you doing great evil and great harm. On the other hand if you stand against it and proclaim principles diametrically opposed to it, they may call your statements and actions good. We are indeed in a world where evil is called good and good is called evil. It is accelerating. Think on this, it has been less than 20 years since certain things respecting our roles as men as woman have changed in the Western world. Furthermore, TV shows that would have been only allowed in hushed tones after dark are now broadcast at all times via streaming and sold blatantly in the stores (Series such as Game of Thrones which from what I understand is basically pornographic in what it presents). We are living in perilous times. I thought my family safe and that they all had strong testimonies. Just over the past few years I have found these influences are affecting my very family members. It seems that many families that one would think would have all stalwart children are now also having problems as those children and grandchildren get to be young adults. There is growing anger and resentment among the young people against churches and religion. Some try to paint it that it has always been so. It has not. This growing antagonism I could see eventually leading to all out war against those who remain faithful. In such situations among such evil it would only be a limited amount of time before the faithful were all slain. If we remember the days before the Birth of our Lord when the faithful Nephites were going to be slain if the sign was not seen soon, or the iniquity that abounded on the American continent right before his death and resurrection, it may be that we soon may face such a crisis ourselves. So, there could be many different interpretations or ways it could come about. I do not know, but I imagine those who live to see the Reign of our Lord on this Earth in the Flesh will be able to look back and see it plainly.

It's called the Epstein Drive? Really? That seems...rather...notorious in some ways. I suppose no one connected any dots to that one though in the strange way people do at times. It never mysteriously dies on it's own does it? When cameras get shut off and it's guardians suddenly are not anywhere to be found? It didn't have a G (or Ghislane) series of Drives did it which is encased in a big prison but won't divulge any secrets of it's organization or anything that is there? It doesn't have the remains of a mysterious cello which seems to have roots with a (Melissa) Solomon does it? A Melissa Solomon who got their tuition paid...until they didn't? And the Cello as one of Epstein's items after it leaves or it's demise occasionally? I suppose if it was by accident than it was probably too late to change the name after the name got out in the open and associated with notoriety. Strange coincidences in life occur at times.

A thought. When one has to focus on doing something in a particular way, they tend to remember it more.