JohnsonJones

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.

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.