JohnsonJones

Of interest, the church unveiled a new statue of the 5 bridesmaids (virgins) found in the scripture recently on temple square (at least according to an article I read recently).

This is an area where society has gone absolutely berserk over the past 10 years. I have some thoughts... Freedom is the ability to do whatever you want, until you abridge the freedom of someone else. Tolerance is to tolerate others and their actions, until their words or actions inhibit the freedom or press towards intolerance of another. In that light, in regards to women, we have separation of women from men for various reasons. Some so that they have the freedom to compete with other women and not have to take into account the abilities of men in those measures (women's sports). Some so they are not harmed or hurt by the opposite sex (such as why we would have women's prisons in the first place, or women's restrooms). I have no problem if one wants to be trans. They deserve love ( Love they neighbor as theyself) and freedom to do as they wish. However, what is being pushed today for them in many areas is going to also abridge the freedom of women, and in many instances their cries of tolerance are not cries for tolerance in and of themselves, but tolerance that builds upon an intolerance of allowing women to be free to be women. I don't understand how one can support some of these ideas (for example, I am highly opposed to Transgendered Women, or Men to Women, men who transitioned to women, being in women's sports). It seems that it is an attempt to abridge freedom, and trying to build an intolerance towards women in the name of building tolerance.

I tried to watch Hamilton. I have to say that it is a "musical" which does not appeal to me in the slightest. In comparison, after conference on Sunday afternoon they showed the Sound of Music. That was far more enjoyable, even as a Movie, than Hamilton on Stage. I really don't have anything good to say about Hamilton, so I think I should leave it at that.

I'm already praying that the Second Coming will happen soon, but I think with my failing health, I probably will not be around to see it. However, the important thing is that it doesn't matter in that way, when the Second Coming is, the Second Coming for each man is upon his death when he goes to meet his maker. I only hope he is merciful to me when that time comes.

This is probably one big problem that Democrats have currently, and a problem they had during the election. Rather than support each other, there are a few of them (but a few that make a loud stink, as they have a very loud voice...as words via social media would go) that only seek to tear others down and divide themselves by saying someone isn't far left enough, or isn't supporting their policies enough. You kick enough of your own people out and you are left with less people then you had before.

I don't think I agree with that. If you look at the teachings of Jesus, in today's society, he would be a leftist. I know many supposed religious individuals do not agree with that, but when we look at the things he said and what his church's actions were... He was for sharing equally of all things. No rich or poor among them. Peter was used by the Lord to slay a family that held back some of their belongings, just to stress how strongly an item this was. He wasn't for hating your enemies or killing them. He said to turn the other cheek and to walk the extra mile. He provided free healing to those who were of his people (and even sometimes, those who were not). These are some very liberal ideas, even today. I find MANY religious individuals find these items too liberal for them, where as a LOT of more liberal minded individuals note that the Lord said by their fruits ye shall know them. I know that some of the young people who have been my students have taken up the argument that if Christians do not even follow their supposed Lord, then why should they. They've read the Bible, and they understand many of it's teachings enough to see that what is being argued for today by many is not taught in the bible by Jesus, but are morals taught and practiced by men instead. When we try to other people in this manner, I think it actually is very unchristlike. We are attempting to make them the other and thus lesser to us. This would apply to conservatives and liberals alike, but as for this conversation, it would apply more towards those who are conservative (as I find very few liberals here, much less independents like I am [though technically you could say I'm a moderate conservative in real life, not that one would see it in comparison to this forum where I seem almost like a far left liberal in relation to the views here...which just shows how far to the hard right this forum is currently...where a moderate conservative is considered that far left...is pretty wild if one thinks about it). It's not that the Liberal mind wants someone else to take responsibility, but that they see it as a responsibility that society itself will not do on it's own. The reason for many social programs is because the Religious arms and the more Conservative arms who claimed they were doing charity...were either not enough, or actually did NOT do charity. Hence, other programs to take care of the poor and elderly were utlized. Interestingly enough, in the US, when they first were instituting the Welfare programs, Roosevelt consulted with the Church (our church) authorities on their program (programs that were far more extensive in the type of help they gave their members and how long they gave that help, especially during the great depression era). Welfare was originally based off the church's program (before the 60s came around and did away with the work requirements that they included, even if it meant having the individual dig ditches in front of the office and then fill them in again). Of course, during that time period, the members of the Church were overwhelmingly Democrat and also liberals. Joseph Smith was considered a liberal (and far more liberal than even the liberals of the time tolerated). Brigham Young was considered Liberal (and, he too, with the polygamy stances, was also far more liberal than what was considered acceptable at the time. Throw in how they practiced consecration and his ideas of consecration and it was FAR too liberal for people back then, and probably FAR too liberal for almost every conservative member today if they understood what he did, how he did it, and how strict he was on imposing it). Many of the church Presidents up through the 60s were also Democrats and liberals, though you also started to have more Conservative General Authorities enter the field as we get closer to our time. Even today, though a majority (in my opinion) of the General Authorities are Republicans or Conservative, you still have a few Liberals among them. Do you consider them in that same light? PS: Today, the church does not say one side or the other is wrong, nor that the Saints are evil if they are conservative or Liberal. In fact, the Church takes a neutral stance and holds that we should pray to be inspired by the Lord to choose righteous leaders.

Thanks for the write up on Wicked. My Son and Daughter in Law and my grandkids all saw that movie, and then they went to a travelling broadway (or something like that) stage production of it. I find it ironic. They are about as far Right and extremely Conservative as one can get, so if it has everything you review it with, I don't understand why they loved the stage production (and also enjoyed the movie). I enjoy musicals and had thought about seeing Wicked. I think you saved me time and money as it sounds (from your review) as a movie that I would not enjoy (I'm somewhat picky on movies, most movies today have too much language and violence for me, even those people say don't have that much are normally too much for me to enjoy). I appreciate you taking the time to share this. I have not seen these shows, but Star Trek has always been somewhat liberal. It became even more liberal with the 80s onwards shows, and from what I understand, has continued that trend today (I cannot say I know this personally, as I haven't seen the shows, but it is what I've understood). From those same sources I heard that this movie was terrible though (Section 31). I'm not sure why, but overwhelmingly it seemed like people reviewed it badly.

Well, President Nelson want's us to love each other and to promote peace and love rather than hate and violence. I think that's a good thing to keep in mind over the next few months as turmoil is all around us.

As I said in another thread, I'm still adjusting to other changes they've already made! If they went to 1 hour church, the best solution would be to change it back to what it used to be. Sacrament was an hour or more on it's own. That was one meeting. You only had to go to that. They did not have the block (no 3 hour block, no 2 hour block). It was just Sacrament. Sunday School was another time entirely (and so was Priesthood). They also had sacrament during Sunday School (depending on ward and location). I'd be in favor of that type of One Hour Church, where it was just Sacrament, and then they had other meetings at other times. I don't think that's what people are meaning though. I think it's more as what posters have said above where it relegates the Sacrament Meeting to 1/2 an hour or so, and the other half an hour is the other meetings. That's too short for my liking, but it's not what I prefer, it's what the Lord prefers.

I deal with a Lot of left leaning people (to clarify, I work with students and academia...there's a Lot of liberal people in certain areas of academia). I don't know any of them that have said that. I Have heard some of them say that a lot of the things that have happened recently under Trump would have never happened had he never been elected, and a meme or whatever they call it has gone around saying that if the shooter who tried to shoot Trump when the election was going on had been successful, a lot of the grief they are getting recently would never have occurred. Ironically, wasn't that kid a Republican and from a Conservative family? I would think if people really were okay with shooting Trump we'd hear a lot more about people actually attempting to do so. Then again, maybe it's about to happen and I just have too much hope that people are not like that.

According to the DOJ DoJ gang estimate numbers They seem to think approximately 1 million members of gangs exist in the US. Isn't that one of the reasons Trump is stating for deporting a lot of those he is deporting (and the pictures that I've seen show a group that had the MS-13 tattoos all over their body) them without a hearing? He claims they are a threat and that many of them are doing criminal activity (even if they have not had their day in court to prove it or show it). It's a good point that we do not know the political affiliation of gangs, but I think most Republicans that I know would not want to claim gangs as being politically affiliated with the right. More often, I would think things from the Left (legalization of Drugs, relaxed rules on pornographic material [with the idea of free speech] rather than the laws many conservative states are issuing regarding restrictions on them) would be more of the political arenas the gangs would prefer. There would be areas where the gangs would have a stronger hold and areas where they would be weaker (for example, Salt Lake would probably be a safer area in the case of a Gang violence, whereas Chicago with an estimated 100K gang members probably would not be). Of course, the gangs are not the only people that have guns on the left. There are 45.1 million Democrats. Supposedly 20% of them also are gun owners (and I would imagine some have been trained on them, for example, Walz who was the recent VP candidate under Harris has had training with weapons). That would be around 9 million more right there. How many voters have a party affiliation Pew Research About Americans and Guns And of course, that doesn't mean that encompasses all those on the left. As per another thread, some one said that 55% of Democrats condone violence (against the President). I believe it's the Trump Derangement Syndrome Thread. That doesn't sound very unviolent to me. That would mean, with 55% of 9 million you'd have almost 5 million (4.95) armed and angry people. I do not condone violence, and I hope that violence like that doesn't break out. However, if people started to threaten this type of stuff, I'm not sure that it would be something to easily laugh off either.

Well, what I see about his tariffs is that a lot of people's 401K's are taking some serious hits right now. There have been some interesting things this year. I was finally going to retire at the end of this semester (and still plan to). My health is actually not that great these days so the need to finally retire is...basically now. A few weeks ago I was asked to reconsider my retirement. It sounds like grants and other things are also giving the administration (university, not Nation) headaches with the going on's recently. I am done with all the insanity of the university though, I'm ready to at least enjoy a year or two (hopefully more) of just being with my wife, maybe travelling...etc. I am lucky with this though. If I was having to rely entirely on a 403 or 401 after this last month, I would probably be seriously worried about my future. With the market crashes we've been having (not unexpected with the tariffs battles we've had which have marked some market instability, which is where a lot of investments are placed) over the past little while quite a few are probably very nervous about their retirements. That said, we are probably going to buy a new washing machine and dryer this week and I already ordered a new laptop before the time when the tariffs could hit and drive the prices of those items up.

The most violent Left I hear about are the gangs, and supposedly there are enough gang members throughout the US that they actually outnumber the US military, which means they also outnumber the amount of Police. Gangs are supposedly a major problem in the US (and have been since at least the 60s), have guns, and do a LOT of crime. I know Salt Lake City is actually considered one of the safer cities in the nation and has far less crime and criminal activity than most, but even there I would think the Law Officers would recognize that could be a serious problem if all those people ever got organized and angry.

I'll hope or guess for a Temple in Charleston, West Virginia. I'm still trying to adapt from different meetings at different times of the day and week, to transitioning to 3 hour church! 2 hour church is still confusing me on where to go on which Sunday! And now people are wanting 1 hour church?!

That's interesting. When I was younger, you could go to any store and they would have a rack of comic books. I don't think I've seen a rack of comic books in any store for...oh, it has to be over a decade if not longer now. I know that they started to get far more adult in themes and such during the time when my children were growing up. By the turn of the millenium they were having such topics in them that I wouldn't want my children to read some of them. Comic books forgot who they were for, and focused instead on adults. If they have lost audiences and that's why I no longer see them in stores, I would say that some of it is because they forgot who they were. Instead of being written in a way which was appropriate for everyone to read, they wrote them focused on adults with adult material in mind instead. That is what I would think, if they continued that trend that I had observed many years ago. Today, they'd just be filled with smut. Comic books from the 50s and 60s were a lot cleaner (or maybe it was my perception as a boy, but I could swear they were a lot cleaner than they became in the late 20th century). Part of it is that "Christians" do not act like Christians anymore. Just a few to comment on. How many are meek these days. Instead of being meek I see Christians (and even members) who are boisterous, loud, and imposing their ideas and views on others. Who are the peacemakers today? Who here supports invading other nations, or taking over places that are not theirs. Who supports Russia in their invasion of another nation and taking their land? Who supports the idea that the US should invade other nations? That doesn't seem very peacmaker like to me. Who is doing the persecuting today? Who is trying to tell others who to live their lives, what they can do, what they cannot do. Rather than being in society, but not part of society, the current "Christians" seem to want to dictate what others can or cannot do, to force others to live their lives as the "Christians" feel it should be. How many of us feed the poor, give shelter to those in need of it, visit those in jail and prison, help the sick and the weak, and go the extra mile and turn the other cheek these days. Christians are not seeing as doing these things most of the time, and in fact, seem to be doing the opposite. If Christians were more as the Lord would have us do, if they would truly be followers of Christ, I think the youth would not be having such problems with Christianity today. However, when they see a majority of Christians supporting sinful leaders, supporting ideals that go against the Bible, they start to question why they should believe anything else Christians say they believe, if the actions of Christians do not support it. This is probably one of the biggest complaints I hear from many young people on why they do not like religion (so, it's not just Christianity) today. It's not that they don't feel there are good teachings and principals found there, but that those who say they follow those teachings, do not actually follow them and in many instances do the opposite.

They said that during the American Revolution... They didn't die off that quickly. In fact, I think their ideas and relatives are still around today in a nation called the Good Ol USA. They said that during the French Revolution. They didn't seem to die off that quickly either, though many DID die. They had a more troubled start, but those they rebelled against DID die, and the descendants of those who rebelled are some of those still in power today. These are where those terms and ideas come from (US and French Revolutions). There were those that felt the same way (that the revolutions would be quickly quashed and those supporting them would either die, surrender, or disappear). I don't think they won that fight. I hope that the US and the world isn't quickly approaching that point, but saying that when people get that angry that they will die off extremely quickly is not what I would say is the wisest course of thought to take. Perhaps more of bolstering communities to survive such things if you think it's on the horizon and preparing yourself and your family to weather the storm, whichever way it blows, would be a better approach.

Hard question to answer, to be honest. I'm not sure if this is what Trump has in mind or not, it could be that he's off his rocker, it could be he's nostalgic, it could be that he's caught up in the past where tariffs were desired, or if what. HOWEVER... The US has lost it's ability to survive on it's own manufacturing as it's become globally intertwined. A lot of the moves Trump seems to be trying to make (including trying to seize Canada or Greenland) are in the interest of a nation which can defend itself without the need to be reliant on others. Part of that is to have the ability to manufacture tanks, airplanes, and everything else we need without using foreign manufacturers. Right now, almost everything we have in the military has something in it that is made in another nation, and if that nation refuses to give it to us...well...that's going to either take some time to replace or we simply lose the ability to use that piece of equipment. China still has the ability to make their own military equipment if they need to. Russia has the ability, even with severe sanctions. The problem is that many in the US do not feel the US could do that if we had to. In addition, it seems he is taking Global Warming seriously (ironic, most of his base probably does not take it seriously). According to those predictions, Canada and Greenland will become far more important defensive zones as shipping and other transportation becomes easier over a melted arctic (or one that is melted year round, enabling a constant shipping lane). The distances between Greenland, Canada, and the other portion of the world across the arctic is closer than going the long way round. There are Two enemies in particular that would be interested in approaching us via that way. One is Russia (whom many feel Trump is an agent of...though...interestingly enough it could be that he sees this threat from Russia and that is the real reason he is so zealous about securing these areas). So, I can see if this was his aim (remember, my original statement was it may not be what he is thinking, but this is a possibility), these are the exact things he would be trying to accomplish. The problem comes in how to accomplish this. If you have to force manufacturing back to the US to become that self sufficient, it's going to require some heavy lifting, and will cause severe repercussions. These Tariffs may not be strong enough yet to actually force that to happen. It may be that Tariffs have to get a lot worse in order to do that. You may have to take Canada and Greenland by force. And this is where the problems come in. With the Tariffs, manufacturing will not return to the US overnight. In fact, my current estimations (and my estimations are probably far too conservative, timewise, this is a base that we've lost over a matter of 75 years!) is that it will take at least a generation (or somewhere around 20 years) to get to that point. I don't think Americans will have the patience for that. In fact, I think they may be wanting to revolt against these things in less than 3 months. That's bad news. In that light, I think Tariffs are a bad idea that will only backfire for Trump and cause a lot of anger and angst against him, even from those that support him. If I were advising him I'd say this could be political suicide for the party if he keeps up this track. On Greenland and Canada, the idea is that they don't have the population to defend against a dedicated invasion against Russia or China. However, they have traditionally been some of the US's closest allies over the past 50 years. Threatening them and wanting to take them over makes them hostile to us, and that is Not a good thing. That will only give possibilities for them to be endeared to our enemies later. We should instead negotiate for a way for us to build up our own bases in greater number as time passes and seas melt, in order to bolster our allies up while also helping ourselves. I think, if Trump is doing this with these ideas in mind, I can see the logic behind some of them. I don't Agree with the moves, but I could understand the logic. In fact, I'd say I oppose the moves. But, if one really wants to get manufacturing back to the US, I see that one very strong way to do it is with Tariffs. Helping people understand this will be hard. Getting it done will be harder. It's going to take longer than Trump will probably be alive, and he will be categorized as a villain by many people for doing it. The Republicans will be villainized for doing it. I don't like it. It's going to be financially painful for a lot of people. I don't think this is the right path, but if you really want manufacturing back in the US to the degree it was in WW2, it's going to take very painful things in order to accomplish that.

I actually have a story of protection, but of one of my relatives rather than of myself. My Future Son-in-Law was serving a mission many years ago. At one point they were going downhill on bicycles on a gravel road. They were racing and as young men do, were not being the most careful. He passed several cars going downhill and so was going at a relatively good clip. As he took a sharp corner, the bike finally had enough and it couldn't keep it's stabilization on the gravel. He hit the ground extremely hard, and then the rest of his body followed. He injured and arm and a leg quite severely and still has the scars from it as well to this day. However, interestingly enough, he didn't fall on his arms or legs first, he fell on his shoulder. His shirt was torn entirely at that point, but he was uninjured at any spot where his garments were, and they were not destroyed or torn. He credits that the protection of the Lord was there to help him due to his faithful keeping of the covenant to wear the garment, and wherever the garment was, he was uninjured (which, unfortunately did not extend to his arms and legs).

In the United States we are blessed in the past (and hopefully today as well) with an FDA and other government agencies that regulate our food. You do not realize how much of a blessing that actually is. I have traveled quite a bit out of the US. There are places where you can literally die from eating the local cuisine if you are not cautious or careful. You can get extremely ill. There are places where you will get extremely sick or die from drinking the water. Prayers over food and drink are extremely important. It isn't just a prayer that will protect you, but also that the spirit will help guide you in what you can or cannot eat or drink, what you should or should not eat or drink. I can recall once when I was younger (decades ago, in my late 30s I think) when I was visiting over in Northern Africa and Southern Europe. At the time I was with some peers and the peer pressure at a meal to not say a prayer over it was heeded. I got food poisoning. It was the worst food poisoning I've ever had. It was to the point that I had to be hospitalized. An experience like that is a good wake up call on why to ask the Lord for protection, why to ask the Lord to bless your food and help you make wise choices in regards to your food, and also to be extremely thankful for when the Lord blesses you with food that is good and nourishing. We are also blessed when we do what we can to ensure we make good choices. Then, after we have done all we can, we can turn to the Lord to take up the slack. There are times when one probably has food that may not be the best, but if they've tried to ensure they eat good food, then the Lord may (as he wills it) ensure that we are getting the nutrients and vitamins we need to remain healthy. I've seen members who only ate junk food who had excellent health. A part of that may be that the Lord truly is blessing their food to provide what they need, or what their body needs according to their faith in him. I do not have all the answers, but I think asking the Lord to bless the food is a good idea, at least in my personal life.

So, looking over the Come Follow Me for next week I had a thought (probably very heavily inspired by the Come Follow Me Lesson). I absolutely love my books. I have what some would consider a rather large library. It consist of over 10,000 books. It is perhaps one of my most treasured things. It is worthless. I dream that when I die, I will be given a large room of books to spend eternity with, but that's as vain a thought as the Pharoahs who tried to bring their treasures with them. It can be a hard thing to put the lord above all other things, including things that you love in this life. Part of putting the Lord first for me, I think it to realize that it's truly just the Lord and what he wants that is important. If it is needful for me to read in the next life, it will be because it's part of the Lord's plan for me, not because of my own selfish desires to simply sit back and read for eternity. I think when I read about Martin Harris's sacrifice, that it could not have been easy for him to do. He ended up losing a lot of property and money. According to this site inflation calculator He would have lost over 100,000 ($101,134.02 as calculated to the end of 2024) in today's spending money. How much are we willing to give for the Kingdom of the Lord. We should be willing to sacrifice all we have (which, in truth, as this life is a temporary probation, is actually nothing at all since we don't get to keep any of it anyways). It's getting into that mindset that can be hard though.

Personal experience working in conjunction with the system, along with a lot of other information regarding what some people would consider paper law. Not something I tend to discuss on this forum. I focus more on the historical side of things, especially as I am now teaching (and hopefully retiring at the end of the semester finally, though there has arisen a complication with that). If you are truly interested you can Message me privately, but any discussions in this regard are strictly private.

So, currently I am working with Activity Day kids and working as a Font Coordinator. The last time I actually Baptized someone was around 2 years ago, it was one of my grand children. This weeks Come Follow Me has me thinking about converting others and baptizing. One of my friends, we'll call him Rod, has been very active with the missionaries and with his friends. I've seen him three times over the past two years. He has baptized several of his friends into the church. I find that very respectable. I look at myself and find that I am far too hesitant in my approach to my peers, but I am unsure how to overcome this. I wish to respect their beliefs and desires, but also wish to introduce them more to the gospel. Have you had success in overcoming this shyness to talking to others about the Gospel and the Book of Mormon in your life and what have you found to be successful. Edit: On that note, I will say I LOVE the current homepage of the Church. Right at the top it introduces topics for those interested in the Church and covers basic ideas that will help interest those who stumble upon it. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/?lang=eng&cid=rdb_v_ldsorg

It doesn't take much to see them on the forum. In fact, you can find accusatory statements in this very thread that are not made by me. However, it would be impolite to point out specific theads or posts at this time. In addition, if I were to do so, I imagine some people who made them would take slight. Furthermore, there are those that probably would use that as evidence that I was targeting individuals, or being mean, or insulting someone (as has already been lobbied at me and of which I responded to in an attempt to say, this was not my purpose). For that reason, I think it is better if I do not get more specific in this instance as that would only further the Spirit of Contention which has been rife here. (And this post probably does not help with it either, but being more specific I can only imagine would make it even worse by several factors).

I love watching BYU TV. It's one of the safer channels to watch these days. When they show movies, I enjoy them. My wife has loved that Well show (Holly at the Well, or something like that, they have a well that grants wishes).