JohnsonJones

Shouldn't there be 12 stars then...or are there (I have not counted the number of stars on the SLC temple). One Star for each of the tribes of Israel?

I don't think I can have any empathy for you getting speeding tickets in this case. If you can't slow down by 10 miles between Texas and Minnesota...well.... 🤓 PS: Can't understand why you'd make such a wide detour going from Texas to Utah, but I suppose that explains why you wanted to speed. Even going 120 MPH would make it a longer trip than going direct. PPS: Yes...if one cannot tell by now, this is a humor post.

That is actually interesting to hear. The push FELT like they wanted a certain type of slant. In fact, it felt like if you were supposed to write one that suggested that Trump could be taken off the ballot. I obviously (as seen from my post above) object to that line of reasoning. That said, I have not read them. I know my post above would be poorly accepted (not formatted right, and everything I stated is based on appearances, feelings and opinion which normally are not acceptable in these types of briefs...so not acceptable at all) but I felt like screaming in the wind about it. The Court (in my opinion) prefers facts and precedence. I haven't read the briefs though so I am unsure how they present such things.

Oops...yep.

I paid $1.50/gallon yesterday. That was with some of it off (cheaper than normal), but it was quite inexpensive for me. Bread was around $2.50 a loaf. A Dozen eggs is under $3. A gallon of milk is around $2.49 so not terrible. California on the otherhand was running around $4.70 a gallon which is a massive difference of costs.

I came today to write on a very similar subject. This deals with the case of taking Trump off the Ballet in Colorado and possibly in other locations. There has been a push from a few directions for individuals with Doctorates in certain areas to write briefs to the Supreme Court. These briefs take the slant that Trump can be taken off the Ballot for the election of President. I did not write one and I did not send a brief. I understand several dozen have been sent to the Supreme Court. Now, it is NO SECRET on these forums that I am not a fan of Trump. I think it should be clear then that I feel these moves are absolutely politically slanted. I DO NOT know who sent all the briefs, but I expect a majority to be those who would already be opposed to Trump more strongly than I am, not due to what he has supposedly done with any insurrection, but simply due to his other actions. I do not support the idea that Trump committed an insurrection. I'd prefer the election to be open and Trump, at least currently, be allowed on the Ballots. I do not like him, nor his politics, but I think he has not had a conviction which bars him from the ballot yet. I feel he could be a threat to the Constitution, the Republic, and any democratic elections in the future if he gains power, but that does NOT warrant (In MY OPINION) for him to be barred. Fear is NOT a reason to take away rights. I DO not feel Trump committed an insurrection on January 6th for the following reasons. 1. I do not feel Trump is mentally sound enough to actually plan something like an insurrection. Trump basically says whatever is on his mind at the moment he is talking. It could be a lie, it could be the truth, but whatever he is currently thinking about, he blurts out. IN that, you can take him as remarkably up front with his thoughts, or remarkably profuse in lying half the time. He doesn't seem the have the forethought to actually recognize what he says and how he says it may affect him in the future. The greatest example of this yet was his behavior towards a trial which he was fined over 80 million dollars recently. If he had any forethought at all, this was a penalty he should have EASILY been able to avoid. Now he has smart people around him that can plan and think these things up, but Trump...in my opinion, it's beyond his ability to do something like this. It would mean he had to be able to plan in detail, and then plant certain individuals, and then without others noticing and not mentioning it, move these individuals into place in order to actually try to overthrow the US government. I do not feel he exhibited this ability nor has this ability. Perhaps others on his staff, but I don't think Trump would understand exactly what they were doing even if he wanted to. 2. He hasn't even been CHARGED with insurrection. If it was so clear cut, there should be charges regarding this directly. 3. You all saw the videos of January 6th. Did this appear to be a group of militant individuals that were performing a precisely organized military attack? It did not appear that way to me. I saw several things. a. It appeared that most of them didn't know WHAT they were doing. They joined in on a mob. When they actually got into the Capital they acted more like confused tourists that were going around with the freedom to do as they wanted. They acted more like people who were in a grocery store they were visiting than a focused group intent on taking over the government. b. I've seen videos from the BLM riots, and I've seen January 6th and they appear very similar. The difference was who were there involved with the riots. Some of the BLM riots were more destructive than the one on January 6th (though not towards government buildings generally). If the BLM riots were just riots, I would think that this was more likely a riot in general than an attempted insurrection. c. Yes, I think there were a few there that had a strategy to do some very nefarious things to members of government. I think it was an extremely small segment of individuals who were planning these things out. They had a hand in creating the mob and directing it. I think they were not one united group, but several groups. They composed less then 1% of the mob. They had some very horrible things they planned to do and we are lucky they didn't get to do them. I do not think that they would have overthrown the government even if they were successful. They could have caused some serious damage, but not overthrown the government. d. I think Trump was delighted that there were people who so fervently supported him, but I do not think he realized that it would be perceived that he was pushing them to cause an insurrection. I don't think the thought actually even entered his mind. I think he was trying to OVERTURN an election, but I don't think he realized it would be seen by some as an insurrection. With the exception of the few mentioned in part c, I highly doubt most of the mob that were rioting even had the thought that they could be seen as being part of an insurrection. I think the thought of that would have horrified most of them. Most of them probably thought they were patriotic and being highly loyal to their nation. 4. I do not think if they were successful they would have actually overthrown the US government and succeeded. I don't think that was most of their intent, nor do I think that was Trump's intent. He didn't want to kill everyone in Congress. That wouldn't have done him any good. I think he wanted people to protest the validation of the electoral votes, but not to actually go and kill the very people who would have to make the decision whether to validate or not. He wanted Congress to make a decision that would be favorable to him, not to destroy Congress so no decision could be made that day at all. IN ending, I do not support the idea that Trump should be tossed off the ballot due to fomenting an insurrection. It's a nonsense thing that if we accept that states can just toss off a presidential candidate because they feel like he broke a certain rule or not, it could cause a dangerous precedence in the future where states can accuse anyone they do not like of causing an insurrection or other item to disqualify a candidate someone does not like. I still do NOT support Trump. I still am not going to vote for him at this time. However, if Trump is to be defeated, let it be via a legal way rather than trying to create ways that could cause a serious problem in the future (In MY OPINION). PS: I feel Abbott in Texas is closer to an insurrection than Trump ever was. If I were Biden I'd push the issue. Nationalize the Texas national Guard along with any other states whose guard members are there. Then tell them to take down the barriers. Those who refuse to obey are court martialed. If the Texas Governor orders his Texas State Guard (different than the Texas National Guard, State guard are ONLY answerable to the Governor) and police to fight against these nationalized troops, THEN he really IS basically forming an insurrection. He's already coming somewhat close to it in refusing to obey the Supreme Court and the US Federal Government, but he hasn't actually started or gotten involved in fighting against them...YET. That's FAR more concerning in my opinion in regards to what COULD cause an insurrection than what Trump did on January 6th.

Personal thoughts.. I do not know personally what initiated it, but I have my suspicions it started to come to light when Joseph Smith was receiving revelation in translating the Bible (Old Testament) as well as when he was having revelatory inspiration in regards to his translation of scrolls which led to the Book of Abraham. Though the Church has an ESSAY (Which I may remind people, is actually not written by General Authorities and is normally from people like yours truly and others who study out the item, it is/was then approved for posting on the site and thus is actually NOT doctrine, nor even policy per se, but informational for your growth and knowledge), the actual doctrines of the church on the issue is not so clear cut. The Pearl of Great Price on which passages the ideas of Brigham Young (and even Joseph Smith's though we do not focus so much on his later ideas on this) support this idea of a curse were NOT doctrine or scripture at the time, but the prophet would have been well aware of them and this is why I feel his thoughts first pondered on these and received revelation accordingly. These passages became scripture (and thus doctrine) later, and are STILL considered officially scripture and Doctrine today in the Pearl of Great Price. They are scriptures which some find hard and cause some to stumble due to the pride they have in putting modern values over revelation and scripture.

If I understand you correctly, this is exactly how it happened. The Priesthood had the chance to be offered to all those who would be part of the groups to be offered it first, and after that had been fulfilled, the priesthood was opened to others. Of interest, this could also be seen in lieu of another item Brigham Young had instituted (but I won't go into detail of all the areas of which this was discussed or pursued due to the location and wording of it) where he had Saints pledge the Lord's vengeance on those who murdered the prophet up to the third and fourth generations. That would have ALSO been fulfilled (And thus ended as anything that was remarked about it) around the same time and should have been done away with (as it was) in the ensuing years (I believe up until the beginning of the 90s?? decades sometimes meld together) along with other items in reference to it. I'll read the rest of the thread to see if anyone says anything that sways me differently though.

Does that mean you are currently sleeping? It's already in the afternoon where I'm at. What time do you normally wake up at? (The above is a JOKE...please accept it as that and nothing more).

There is something I tell individuals (not that it helps, but I try) in situations similar to these. Sometimes you need to have a testimony of the gospel, but not necessarily the church. What I mean, is the church in this would mean the leaders and individuals who are in it. Leaders and individuals are flawed and still human. The gospel is our path to exaltation. I have heard someone say, for a church that teaches all about eternal families, it's not that family focused. Many wards, instead of trying to involve families try to EXCLUDE families. Thus, instead of inviting all father's to come with sons on camps, and mothers to come with daughters to camps, they try to exclude parents from their children. Instead of allowing parents to be involved with the children's religious education at church, they exclude them. They send parents one way, and try to send kids another. In today's society (this is even more true in the East, meaning parts of Asia), organizations that do NOT explicitly have instructions to include parents when having youth organizations are inherently mistrusted. This is a problem that is also occurring in the public school system in the United States in some areas (and why parents are having real troubles with public education at times). Some parents choose to take children out of school because of things such as this. In an ideal world we would have it explicitly stated in the Handbook of instructions that parents can be involved with their children in church in all situations. This would also help safeguard the church against lawsuits to a greater degree than it has now (though it may also open it up to lawsuits as well, but probably to a LESSER degree than it is open to them in it's current handling of youth and children. I expect in one or two decades the church is going to have a situation similar to what the BSA just went though with abuses and lawsuits en masse). When I was a church leader I invited parents to be involved with whatever their children were doing regardless of calling. I am no longer a leader, but I have seen a similar openness in our area currently (at least for now). It can be difficult when a ward or stake is not as open to allowing parents to oversee their children. I would say to stand firm and make it known that your children are YOUR children, not theirs. Be strict and stand your ground. I know it is hard, but I would invite you to go and attend church again. Even if it is only for sacrament, renewing our covenants is a special and important part of our lives. When you stop attending the church, even if your own testimony is strong, it can lead your children down other paths. The church is a vessel that carries the covenants of salvation and exaltation. Many of us hope that our children will go to the Celestial Kingdom with us and their families will also be there (and so on and so forth). This is made possible through the covenants that are only available through the Church itself. This is the reason to attend and to inspire our children to at least obtain these covenants. That said, be firm and stick with your children. If you need to attend their classes, attend their classes and activities. Remind those in charge that it is YOUR children, not theirs, and YOU are there to make sure abuses do NOT occur. That they have done NOTHING to build your trust in them, and until they do, and you trust them, you will KEEP on sticking with your children. If you cannot attend youth classes and activities, then at least go to sacrament. I know it can be hard in today's church at times. I am an imperfect individual and I know there are those who probably have serious problems with me as well. When I was a Church leader there were probably those who disliked things I did. That is okay. I know I am imperfect and they shouldn't follow me. They should follow the Lord and his gospel. That's what it's all about in the end I think, following the Lord and keeping his commandments.

I've seen it. I'd give examples of it, but I don't think it would be very faith promoting or useful to do so in this thread currently. However, I've seen this and similar items be an issue in the past decade with several members. It could be something that could be discussed in another thread, but I don't think it will help anything to talk about it in depth in this thread, at least from me.

Before I being, I will point out that there is a great deal of sarcasm to follow... 1. Germany is NOT the U.S., though many want to think it's the same. That said, you have a strange idea of what makes one lower class. For example, I know of an individual who's father was only a Lowly shoe salesman. How could such an individual with a father who struggles to sell shoes from such as small shop be from anything other than a lower class. I mean...adidas is such a SMALL company in the world! You used the Second Chancellor as an example. This business was big enough to have executives and branches, but yet, as per you, was just a lowly store (much like adidas is a lowly shoe selling place). If it WASN'T for his father and the situation of such, he probably would have had more problems being an "unemployed" academic for 3 years (at which time he also was, in theory also an executive in his father's company). Such a destitute and poor world it was, such a lowly class of poverty and struggle there. Kiesinger is a bit of a different duck as he gained his "privilege" before World War 2 and the changes to Germany (among which is where it became East and West Germany. It does not appear he was starving during the Wiemar Republic). He DID get the privileges of being a Nazi (and all that this entailed in gains above those who were not part of the Nazi party) early on. He became a Nazi in 1933. This was prior to him even graduating with a degree in Law. Such a terrible lowly thing to have everything provided when people were starving in Germany in the late 1920s. Surely that shows how far down on the totem pole he was in class. Then, to go to College and be a Nazi where he had to watch those in higher classes gain such great things such as losing all their property, being sent to camps and such while he had to suffer by seeing others in his class get their stuff! Then, with such terrible connections he avoided being conscripted to arms in the War during 1940 because he was able to obtain a position in broadcasting where, because he had such horrendous opportunities he became deputy head of the department and liason to the department of Propaganda. Luckily, his loyalty to Hitler and high position in the Nazi party during those times gave him no advantages, if I understand what you wrote correctly? I DO find it interesting you chose to highlight him (the third chancellor) as he is considered HIGHLY controversial at times (which I've hinted at strongly, but won't go into detail as that is a MUCH LONGER discussion) as an example of one who had low privileges. I would actually have thought that it was due to his ability to divorce himself from what he did in his past and justify how he actually avoided supporting the Nazi's (despite close ties to the Office of Propaganda) as well as the close connections he had to certain individuals of the time is a prime example of how one in a certain social status can use those advantages to their ability to obtain power...but...as long as we are being sarcastic on these things... Such a hard struggle coming from such a place! 2. Germany has a great social mobility in some areas. I would not refute the idea that Uchtdorf had lowly origins in regards to what we see in the United States. One reason he is a member is due to his grandmother standing in line to try to get food after World War 2. When one struggles with poverty, it is impossible to be part of anything but lower class. I know a prime example that comes from our United States history. It's a PRIME example of how poverty forces one to remain in the lower class and never grants any privileges to their children. This person was in the United States as an Irish Catholic. At this time there was a massive amount of prejudice and discrimination against Irish Catholics. In the early 1900s this individual worked hard and managed to get into Harvard, only to find out that discrimination there was alive and well. A little depressed at how classism worked he swore that he would become a successful businessman and show the others that he could succeed. He swore he would make a million dollars (being 20-30 million in today's dollars) by the time he was in his mid 30s. This wasn't helped that he ended up having 9 children which he also had to try to support. However, luck struck and his father started to have success in local politics, with many of the Irish Catholics in the surrounding area also supporting their rise to power. Joseph actually succeeded in his goals despite these challenges and even better, massively exceeded them. One of his children, Jack, was raised during this time period but suffered dearly. Because of the time and the situation, this son was regularly sick having measles, whooping cough, and then...what was at the time deadly...scarlet fever. The young boy survived and grew with the family. This boy would grow up to show that no matter what the prejudice, one can gain positions and power. This young boy's name...John F. Kennedy. So you see, this is an example that one who has a family that struggles at some point can never have any privilege at all. John F. Kennedy became President without any connections, help, or advantages because, as you put it, once in poverty...always in poverty???? Now, as seen, Germany is NOT the United States. However, I would expect someone who was a Vice President in an Airlines would have no privilege and, despite making a LARGE amount of money, also still be in poverty and in the lower class in Germany...if I understand what you are phrasing and how you are phrasing it? 3. I have had a LOT of sarcasm in my above posts. On this point, I'm not going to use any sarcasm. I've tried to offer the opposite view you presented in the points above to show an alternate take on the same thoughts. This is one I just can't do it. I don't have the spirit. I can't malign Uchtdorf just to make a point. That's just too far from how I feel that I just can't do it on this point. Elder Uchtdorf was a brilliant pilot. He worked hard. Whether he had advantages in getting there or not, it was ultimately his hardwork and talent that enabled him to become the head of his class in the military and gain better positions at Lufthansa. He has been part of the Upper class in Germany for many decades. That said, I have often felt that he has great empathy for others including those who are poor and destitute. He has great sympathies for those who are disabled and suffering. He is a wonderful person and I can't reduce my own opinions of the man to squabble about such a thing. The general point I think was representation. It was how people and members in the Church feel represented. I think I already posted a view of this in the 12th post of the first page of this topic in my "Counter" and how this actually is. The apostles are divinely approved and are divinely appointed to lead our church through revelation and the Lord's guidance So, though I will still stand by the point that Germany is NOT the United States (and Brazil is not either), and both have different systems and ways of evaluating class, position, and other hierarchical ideas, I have already presented that I think our General Authorities and Church leaders are Led by the Lord and it is the Lord who leads our church.

No, of course not, but I find it par for the course. The same commentary going on here about BYU is probably valid in triplicate towards the U. Of course, what is said about the U is probably valid a dozen times more towards other universities. HOWEVER, on the final portion of my post, in regards to football...yes...I admit...I hold BYU and the U in low regard. That's sports though, not the university or the education they provide. That said, BYU is normally known nationwide more for football then other things. After that, occasionally it's also known for being "Mormon, but IRONICALLY...outside of Utah and Utah influenced areas, the U is ALSO known for being "Mormon" so it all sort of balances out. I have no hard feelings towards any of them, and most of my above post was said in jest or poking lite fun with no hostile intent. This is why I brought up football, because in the eyes of the SEC...both BYU and the U are equal in their eyes. The BYU/UofU rivalry is sort of like two kittens going at each other. In the eyes of a Bulldog...kittens going at each other is cute but no real challenge there. Of course you surprise me sometimes, but probably not on this one. More seriously, both are decent universities. BYU is a well respected university and has many of the top 100 colleges in the Nation (for things such as accounting and Law for example). The University of Utah is also very renowned and is famous for it's Hospital and medical connections the world over. As for Religion professors teaching things about the Book of Mormon at BYU, I have no control over that. I imagine that if they are teaching this at BYU this is actually on a SYMPTOM of something far bigger and pervasive going on in the CES system of the Church which would also translate that it's probably also happening on other campuses at their institutes of religion or elsewhere (which would also include the U's institute of religion which if I recall, either that or the Aggies at Utah State have the biggest institutes in the nation). It would be interesting to see which professors at BYU are actually promoting this idea, but I would also think that an investigation of how widespread it is among the Institute and CES system it is or has spread would be necessary at the same time. Another thought I had is if this is actually something that's being promoted at BYU and the CES system...this could spell a change in the church's approach to things. IF it IS an officially endorsed and promoted item from Church leadership itself to the religion professors...this could be a precursor. What would people's opinions be if this is actually NOT something that is coming from the Professors themselves, but something they have been INSTRUCTED to teach from higher Church leadership, and is a precursor of an official stance that the Church may be preparing to take in the future? (and as an aside, this is similar to a stance the the CoC took decades ago and has been being pushed towards Church Leadership for awhile. It is NOT something I support, but I've seen this push to have this type of teaching and stance towards the Book of Mormon take place in our Church as well. I do not approve of this idea, but I don't know what my reaction would be if the Prophet himself decided that this is the Church's stance from now on, except that Utah culture [where I have seen this come from most often and where a LOT of the more liberal ideas which have changed the church recently have come from] is alive and strong in it's influence on Church policies still).

Several thoughts are brought to mind on reading your post. Part I I recently read an article on Climate change about how the oceans are rising and destroying a village in Mexico. It was pointed out in the comments that if you look at the coastline beyond that village, you will notice that the ocean hasn't actually risen at all. That the village itself only came about around 40 years ago. That the reasons why there wasn't one previously were due to the exact reasons the village had suffered as per what the article posted...AND...even with that, most of the buildings were still standing and NOT damaged. I feel Climate Change is occurring and that there is a Human factor that is involved with causing it to accelerate. I also think that there is a awful lot of alarmist statements and articles that exaggerate how it has affected the world thus far. This way of doing things only diminishes how believable the actual claims of Climate Change are. When someone reads one of these articles and then finds out that it's basically full of lies, they are apt to discount ALL of the Science behind Climate Change. These types of articles do more of a disservice than to help with anything, but these people pushing them and whatever agenda they have do not seem to understand they are doing more harm than good. However, it IS affecting our youth and it is part of what they catalogue on their issues that are ongoing in the world. I would be remiss if I ignored that many of my university students have these concerns. It adds to the general malaise many of them feel towards the world and it's future. I think there are many types of articles and influences like this today which make many of our students and young people give up hope about the future. Someone without hope for the future is less likely to invest in a future...which also includes having a family. Part II The bigger concern I've seen in regards to family and children recently has to do with money and the financial situation in the West. Housing is becoming unaffordable. If a young person cannot afford a home, they are much less likely to start a family. Many young people today look at the prices of housing and think they will NEVER be able to afford a home. This is a DIRECT impact on them having families. If WE want more kids to get married and have families we HAVE to solve the housing crisis that is occurring in the West. Unbridled greed and seeing housing as investments rather than a place to live and raise a family have caused what I see as a extreme problem to our society today. I would say this is actually the #1 factor in students saying they won't ever have children...simply because they do not see themselves as being able to afford a family and children in the future. This is from those who are in college. I hate to see what despair is hitting those who are not looking at having a college education and the ensuing benefits in the future. We NEED to somehow tackle the greed that has consumed the housing market. We need to somehow make housing affordable for young families and those who want children. We NEED to make children affordable. By making the necessities that are needed to raise children so expensive, we are guilty of being the cause of decreasing the desire and ability of our younger generations to HAVE those children. Even having a child now days (giving birth at a medical facility) can cost over $20,000 in the initial bill. That's insane. It cost me less than $100 for my children to be born. That's 2000x the amount I paid to have children. That's ridiculous and is worse than inflation by a FAR amount. If we want young people to have children, we have to make it so that they can actually AFFORD to have those children. Part III I don't know if it's seen as irrational, but if you combine the two above (despair and giving up about the future and not being able to afford a family) you get a deadly combo of kids who look at families and think it doesn't make sense to try to have one. It's coming from both sides of the equation. One side basically trying to kill all hope that the Kids have OF the future. The other side basically making it impossible to AFFORD the children even if they wanted one. There needs to be SOMETHING done, but I don't see the collective will of society in the West being able to come together at this time to get rid of both of these ideologies and greed to be able to actually stop the destructive forces that are fighting against families today. It's a sad state of affairs we find ourselves it.

Aren't you a solid UofU fan? This is the type of comment I would expect from one. Nothing wrong with being a UofU fan, but I would think all UofU fans would have a rather low opinion of the Y. (Being a UGA fan I have no skin in this rivalry, as UGA would crush either one of them in the only sport that matters...being football and all).

I am somewhat familiar with the German way of life. I'm not absolutely certain at which angle he is coming from, but there are MULTIPLE ways that his statement is actually accurate. One of the easiest to point out is how the education system works in Germany (and much of Europe). Education and higher education does NOT work like it does in the United States. You are sorted into (at least) three different groups. This differentiation will determine what you will be able to do in the future, how much education you will get, how much pay you might be able to expect, and much more. In order to be a Pilot and a VP at an airline, Uchtdorf would have HAD to be placed in the highest tier. This allows one to go to a University and get a University education. Education is FREE, but only to those that Germany grants that education to. The lower tier would be those who would be deemed in the US to be worthy of Blue Collar work. This is where your tradesmen (but many times, not their white collar office workers who tell them where to go) come from. Finally, at the lowest tier, you will find those who are deemed unable to really be educated. They will be taught the basics of life and be reliant upon the state for all their needs for the rest of their life generally, unless they somehow miraculously break out of that role. This placement sort of determines where you are going to be considered in life and what jobs will consider you. You can get into the highest tier if you have really good test scores, your relatives have really good connections, or you have a really good reputation to overrule everything else. Uchtdorf would probably have had to come from this class of individuals or he came outside the system (Such as from the US, his biography doesn't indicate that he came from outside the system). I have relatives that moved from Germany to avoid this classification of their children as they wanted them all to have the freedom to choose to go to college if they wanted to.

Side note: Not trying to detract from the conversation, but this actually opens up another line of discussion unrelated to the original topic, but actually has had a direct impact on me when going out with the Missionaries. Different topic, but it is a question related to what you brought up here. I know Gong is considered a PoC, but is Soares really a PoC? I KNOW what the church claims about Soares, I also know that in Brazil many consider him white, and that overall many consider him a majority of European descent. The question is what is considered white vs. non-white? These definitions can differ between Brazil and the U.S. in many ways. I also have seen minorities scoff at the idea of Soares being a PoC or being considered non-white in the U.S. when it's been brought up. I HAVE TO ADMIT I do not fully understand why, but I have seen this reaction. Without knowing more about the why, I'm not sure repeating this often and loud is the smartest thing to do among those who may have a darker skin than Soares (the majority of racial minorities out there). If he ISN'T seen as a minority by the majority of those who are minorities due to race, claiming he is a PoC may actually work against us. I don't bring it up these days when we are with the missionaries as I've already seen a few bad reactions to these claims when presented to some of the Hispanic investigators we visited. I have been embarrassed enough by their reactions that I've never actually pursued the question after that, so I'm not fully informed on WHY they do not see him as one of their own (talking about the non-white hispanics that we talked to) in being a non-white PoC or of a non-white ethnicity. I only know that though members are very proud to see him as a PoC, the investigators (plural) that we've brought this up to at times in trying to empathize with them...did not see it in the same way and actually on several occasions seemed to be quite offended.

I don't think he's actually been practicing since 2017. I think he has also retired from being a professor, but still operates on a per quota basis occasionally. He is still licensed though.

I think the complaint isn't that Kearon isn't a good person, but that it appears that the Church has a bias towards the prosperity gospel and promoting the idea of a prosperity gospel. This comes from the idea that starting with Bishops a majority of those called are almost always from the Upper or Upper Middle Class. If a ward is not part of a wealthy area, the Bishop is normally one of the wealthier members of the Ward (so, even in poverty stricken areas, a Bishop may still be poor, just not as poor as some of the poorest of the ward). This isn't ALWAYS so, but it has a strong enough trend that even those beyond the church notice that the leadership of the church seems to be a bunch of wealthy people. The wealthier and better off you are, the higher the position in the church. The Path to being a General Authority seem to come from three directions. You are either rich and powerful to begin with, you are part of the CES system and have connections, or you are related to someone notable. Some try to pooh pooh this idea, but ignoring the trend and HOW IT IS SEEN by others does not make this problem of perception go away. This brings up the other idea I think that was found in the OP. When all you select are people from a certain type of background (in this case, mostly White, Upper class, Men) your leadership tends to have no idea about what others lives are like. They have no idea what it is like to grow up or live in poverty. They have no idea what it is like to be a minority among the white majority. They are insensitive to problems and desires of the common man (or women). If we use this as an example, a way to see how this reflects on the church is the ACTIVE membership and how many are actually joining the church. The church has stopped releasing official numbers in general making it hard to know what the membership is like, but reduction of stakes and wards and other indicators seem to show that baptisms are extremely low these days as well as active membership being a small fraction of what the full membership is reported (so, something like 17 million members, but only 7-8 million are actually active...etc...etc..etc). By losing touch with the problems of those who are lower classes and not part of the ruling class, you tend to not be able to speak to them or understand WHY they may not want to join the church or not want to be active. Others, who are not part of that group may feel that they are not represented amongst the leadership of the church. This is what I understand by the comments that I hear regarding the composition of the General Authorities of the Church and how some perceive it when the comment on this. Is this a correct understanding? Well, I have to admit I am probably also part of the problem to a degree and thus may not be able to frame it entirely accurately. I'd probably fall into the Upper Middle class dynamic as well as being a White Male. This means, that I also may not fully understand the complaint, but I HAVE tried (as I've tried to explain how I understand it above). I also sympathize having seen this type of item in action. I can't say I have an explanation to every question. I can't give a satisfactory answer at this time to such a query. That said...I DO have some things to point out... MY COUNTER When the Lord was alive he chose from People he knew to be his leaders. At least two of the Apostles were his brothers (so, direct family). It is probable that Peter was a family friend and that most of the others were those he already knew before he started his ministry. In this case, many of them probably were ALSO part of his social and economic strata. Did this make him blind to the needs of others or to what was needed to be taught? I would argue this did not diminish the Holy calling that the Savior or his Apostles had. The tools they had were utilized to the fullest they were able to do, and in such were led by the Spirit, the Father, and Revelation in how to proceed in teaching and establishing the religion of their day. This same idea extends to the Apostles today. They can only assign those that they are familiar with. If they do not know you exist, or are not familiar with you, how can they judge on whether someone would be a good fit. Some could say the spirit, but we also know that when given choices we are to try to make the best choice possible and the best decisions possible and THEN go to the Lord and ask if he is okay with it. I think they try to do this today, and it is after they approach the Lord with the question, it is then that they are guided by revelation on whether that is a good or bad choice. This doesn't negate the holy and divine calling each of them receive in serving the Lord. It is that, just as we are, they are meant to work and do as much as they can themselves and THEN ask the Lord. He then gives them revelation on how to proceed. In this way, each of the Apostles (and the leaders of the Church) are divinely called through revelation after prayer and diligence on the part of our Church Leaders. As such, they are each divinely empowered to lead the church and to fulfill their callings they have been given.

As the Semester has ended I may be visiting with family and other things soon. I will finish the BoM with you, but may not be here to comment much longer before it is done (limited as my commenting has been, even so, it will be less). It's interesting how those who were there spread the word as far as they could and those who were able, or at least many of them, journeyed to get to the location where the Savior had been the day prior. I wonder how far the message was able to spread. They didn't have the technology of today, and it was soon after (perhaps) the greatest disaster their civilization had ever had. In any case, it was a LOT of people that gathered. I was trying to think on this. If we take modern day Atlanta and then hit it with a massive disaster, I suppose people who REALLY wanted others could know could travel 10-20 miles out. That could take 5-10 hours in and of itself. Then those who heard and really wanted, pack and walk back would be another 5-10 hours. Putting it at a median of around 15 hours. That would literally be walking through the night for each without any rest so that they could go. I would hope that in this event I would make that type of effort if I were in similar circumstances. It's easy to say you would, but looking at those type of numbers, it's more of a hope than an absolute. I imagine many may have been extremely tired upon getting there the next day, but the events (the Disciples, then Angels, and finally the Savior again to minister to them) would probably be enough to keep many of them awake and engaged.

Another portion of What I would consider Anti-Semitism... The Republicans in Congress REFUSE to send aid to Israel unless they get money (aka...money to send to supposedly fight the border wall, but from what I've looked at, it appears more to send to contractors who will give them kickbacks and then say they are doing something on the border). In addition, they refuse to support Ukraine in it's fight against a nation that literally has threatened us repeatedly over the past few months with nuclear war or worse (though we properly have called it a bluff, Russia IS NOT our Friend currently). I AM AGHAST. They are choosing to purposefully NOT send aid to Israel unless their temper tantrum is met. This is NOT the Republican party I remember from decades ago. I can't believe the Religious portion of the party isn't throwing a fit about this!? This should upset the Evangelicals and Fundamentalists at a minimum. No one is throwing a complaint though! Has the entire portion of Christianity gone to supporting Antisemitism? Or being Anti-Semitic unless they get kickbacks or something in return? Now, though the Democrats look to be coming out of this a tad cleaner on this, I have no question that if the shoe was on the other foot, they would be doing similar things (probably just as dirty)...but so far they haven't. Which is probably one reason the Republicans are doing what they are doing. They just want to do the opposite of the Democrats for no other reason than to be contrary. It sickens me. While Israel fights against those who would destroy it from the River to the Sea and kill all the Jews and Arab Israelis (who Hamas at times consider traitors) in a genocide...the United States Congress doesn't do what is right and support Israel in it's own 9-11 attack on it. In addition, former Presidents and those who fought against the Oligarchy in Russia (Russia claimed to be following Marxist Communism, but at least from Stalin and probably before that it was more an Oligarchy than pure Marxism) are probably turning in their graves. Ukraine is fighting for it's freedom and democracy and we are sitting on our haunches. When did the Republicans change from a Party that wanted smaller government, but ALSO normally on international affairs were rather strong (it was Reagan and Bush who won the Cold War if anyone recalls) changed into the party of Big Government (the deficit has risen due to the Taxation policies of Trump greater than it has ever before...though the Democrats could have revoked them and didn't for starters) and trying to ignore the battles against democracy (Israel is also one of the ONLY democracies in the Middle East) and Freedom? We want to talk about Anti-Semitism...I see it coming from both the Left and the Right currently. There's no side which seems to be in the clean right now and it has me stunned. I'd have never thought we'd be in this type of position if you had asked me years ago (and Ironically I may have put the Democrats as the ones who would be asking for something in return to aiding Israel, but nope, it's the Republicans)...and yet...here we are.

Not all faith based movies are poorly made, though the studios that were big enough to make major productions have decreased. One of the biggest movie studios that used to have Christianity and Christian based values in it's movies has turned 180 degrees after it's founder died. Disney didn't have EVERY movie with some sort of faith based message, but there were several which had very pointed messages about faith and deity within them. Sometimes they were more obvious in the live actions films they made. Unfortunately, it seems Disney is the exact opposite of what it used to be. One movie my wife really loves is The Happiest Millionaire which has references to Bible study and Christianity blatantly within it. You won't find that type of movie being made by Disney today. You have to turn to other film studios for material like that.

I think the problem is actual priestcraft. There is a difference between priestcraft and other arts. Priestcraft is the art of being a priest. You get paid to be the one who has the authority to perform religious ceremony and acts. In essence, you are being paid to perform ordinances, to tell people they are forgiven, to run the religion or run the church. In Priestcraft you are being paid to be the Priest. You are paid to be the one preaching sermons and telling people what the scriptures say. You are being paid to tell them when they are forgiven, and to give the ordinances to them (sacraments, etc). You are being paid to do what the Lord gives away for free. You are trying to be paid to hand out salvation. If you are writing uplifting books, music, or other items, IN MY OPINION, that falls under the category of other arts or crafts. It's the craft of writing or the art of being a musician or painter or other facet. You are working on something that benefits others. It is not seeking to be paid to profit off of ordinances or the materials thereof, but to uplift people and inspire with your works of art. It is a different field entirely (once again, IN MY OPINION). If no one makes uplifting material, than those of us who try to find uplifting material to read or listen to will not have anything to read or listen or see or watch. It's like other artists and such, but you do it in the spirit of making uplifting and righteous material rather than that which pleases the world.

How does it work, or how does it know how or what to filter? Is there someone who has to go through it first to find it and mark it, or does it use some sort of AI?

World War 2 is closer to some of us than our younger generation thinks. I had a Father and cousins that fought in World War 2. We should never forget. I recently read that 1/5 of Americans do not believe the Holocaust is real. That shocks and saddens me. I've seen how the impacts and sacrifices of those who fought the Japanese in the Pacific have been forgotten over the decades be each succeeding generation. How, slowly the ideas and thoughts of the Imperialist from Asia, and the Facist from Europe have been gaining ground in our modern society. I only hope that later generations do not have to relive the horrors that we unleashed upon ourselves again because they forgot our past.