JohnsonJones

From my understanding, I understand WHY it was taken out of the syllabus. My understanding is that it was not actually BANNED, but simply removed from the school syllabus. In some school districts this would not make a lot of sense as they already have books with bad language and graphic immorality. In one that does not normally approve of these things, Maus itself should not have been part of the syllabus itself. The book in the first chapter tries to humanize the parents, or the main character who is relating the story to his son at the time. There is an incidence of pretty horrid immorality written about during that chapter. There are other instances of references to immoral acts and there is a little language. In addition it addresses an issue regarding suicide and death in a way that could inspire children to feel or copy those acts in some situations. If they ALSO remove other works that also have such material from their syllabus, I fully understand why Maus would and should be no exception. There are other books that cover the same material without referring to such things. On the otherhand, this does not reduce Maus in it's significance. Maus has been selected by some schools because it presents the material in a way that is easier for some people to grasp. It is a comic book form which makes it more entertaining for some individuals to read, and thus learn more personally about the events that took place. Because of the medium in which it is produced, it makes it so that the events have a bigger impact upon the reader as it is a visual medium in addition to reading. It is more personal in the attachment to characters of the book, and in it's own way can impact the reader more strongly than other historical references. If a school district allows other materials which have such things in them (and many school districts do), accepting this book into their syllabus would be a massive boon in helping students understand WHY the holocaust was so terrible and the horrible things that occurred. It is, in fact, less graphic than many other materials on the same subject as well. I think many are jumping on the bandwagon regarding the book being removed from the syllabus and proclaiming it was the wrong thing to do because they have been so insensitized to differing opinions and morals found in various communities. What may be moral in one community may not be moral in another one. I don't think people should condemn the school district from removing it from their syllabus. Things are added and dropped from school syllabuses all the time. Without understanding the views of the community in general towards works that address immorality, language, and suicide, it is almost impossible to know whether they made a choice in line with their other thoughts on the matter or not. The book is still available, and if parents really feel it is necessary for their children to be exposed to such material, they can buy it from Amazon or another store of their choosing, or borrow it from some location that has it available. My initial reactions are that we should not ban books, BUT, considering certain things, we already do so. WE don't push children to go read pornographic magazines or put them in our syllabuses or place them in the children's section of the library. We don't push certain other materials or even carry them in School Libraries. In regards to children, I think some censoring regarding the morals of the community they are in may be necessary, as it is already done on a more limited scale already. The question is how far and to what degree it will be done in regards to what our children should be able to consume. I am against books being banned in general, but where children's information and material come in, I think it's already done by basically every school district out there already and I agree with that. Materials that are Pornographic, for example, are generally not allowed in such places. This means it is NOT a matter of whether anything will be censored or banned from those school districts or not, but HOW MUCH and HOW FAR they will censor materials allowed on their campuses or at least taught in their syllabuses.

I accepted callings as they've been given me, even ones I didn't really want. There was one that I might have probably turned down, but did not. I did a terrible job and so they "fired" me eventually and replaced me. I was appointed Ward Building cleaner coordinator. They always wanted it done on Saturday's in the morning at 8AM. At the time I was busy in the mornings at that time. I asked if they could put it at a later time...they could not. I also leave during the summers. I definitely could not be around for that. Getting people to volunteer to be at that time didn't seem to work either. At times I tried cleaning it on my own late Friday nights or Saturday Nights. Disliked it as it took so much of my time doing so. Fortunately, they eventually released me. I have had others turn down callings for various reasons. I always thanked them for their consideration and accepted that they had reasons for why they couldn't accept. I hope no hard feelings were ever felt in that regard.

Well, another cold snap is supposedly hitting Texas. Stay warm all of you Texas and if power goes out, hopefully you guys got generators and such this year. Good Luck.

The New covenant with those who Covenant with the Lord to be his children. 1. Abrahamic Covenant with the Children of Abraham. 2. The New Covenant with any who choose to follow the Lord and accept his atonement. The first is a Covenant through blood. The second is a Covenant through spirit. Both are children of the Lord, but through different covenants with the Lord. One is the covenant personally to Abraham, Issac, and Jacob and extended to their children. The Second is a personal covenant via the Lord with each one who accepts it (the covenant to accept and follow the Lord and in turn be accepted as his).

I believe that would be the Abrahamic covenant and those to Abraham's, Issac's, and Jacob's children (and thus descendants).

I think eventually we will find that the universe is even older than what they've projected. Evolution used to be thought to have only taken a few thousand years...now we look at it over the course of millions of years. I think that we currently see the universe as being Billions of years old, but I think eventually we may find it is trillions if not older than that. We'd have to be able to look out Billions of years away and see that it is still not far enough to determine something like that. I'm not sure if the telescope will allow us to do that or not.

This leads me to an off topic thought (that relates to my beliefs on the three degrees of the Celestial Kingdom, but I won't get into that anymore than it is actually necessary to discuss the point) regarding those who have exaltation vs. others in the Celestial Kingdom. Current ideas that I have... In the Celestial Kingdom we will attain Celestial Bodies with the appropriate abilities to go along with it. In that sense, we will have the powers of our Father as we inherit from him. We thus will have the power to create worlds, universes, etc. This means that those who are not Married for eternity will have these types of powers as well. There is a difference between them and those that are in Eternal Marriages. That difference is that those who are in Eternal Marriages are able to have exaltation BECAUSE they are able to have children. These offspring add to their glory and kingdom as they increase, both in numbers and stature. Those who are not in Eternal Marriages will not have this increase. In all other ways, they are equal. This difference is a LARGE difference though, as with infinite increase comes infinite glory, which those in Exaltation can have whilst those who do not have an eternal marriage do not. As it is the Celestial Glory, we live a higher law. This means that we seek to serve and help each other. We do not seek of ourselves in selfish desires. The Eternal increase is a side effect as those in Eternal Marriages increase in glory NOT because they seek glory, but they seek to serve and help other intelligences grow and attain joy. In that same light, the mission is the same for those who are not in an Eternal Marriage. They seek to help others in their goals. Thus, they serve others however they can to bring intelligences growth and joy. They are servants, but by CHOICE for the furtherance of service to others which in turn also brings them joy. I bring this up because when we say they reject exaltation, I'm not sure that's the best way to put it. In this life the ONLY way we (humans) currently know to have children is by biological reproduction. If this ceased, there would be no more children. This means there must be two members of the opposite sex who have their genes combined to create live, and a mother who hosts that life until it is ready to be born, at which point it becomes a child. Those who do not participate in this in some way or manner cannot have biological children of their own. There are those that choose not to have children in this way because of their own choices or desires. They still may want to help others, but they do not have children of their own. I imagine this same type of sociality exists in the hereafter as well. Being single in the Celestial Kingdom is not necessarily a punishment, but a joyous opportunity to help and serve others bringing joy to oneself. They still can see the growth of the Kingdom, and great joy without the eternal increase. I'd see it sort of more like that unmarried aunt or uncle that comes over and dotes over their nieces and nephews, or helps out with their care, type of thing. I don't see it so much as a rejection of Exaltation, as one of the many options that one may obtain within the Celestial Glory, if that is what they so choose on this Earth. I think it is still a glory full beyond anything we can imagine, but as I said, the biggest difference being those who can increase in glory by having eternal increase and serving those children, vs. those who also have joy by helping that goal. Others can inject their thoughts on this.

It is a strange process one goes through when they have a grandchild come out as LGBTQ. You start asking yourself questions and trying to figure things out...at least I did. 1. Did I do something wrong as a parent or grandparent? You wonder if you did something wrong in your practices, in what you did. Then, you start to think about how much of it might not be a cultural thing and may be a genetic thing and so you wonder the next item. 2. Is there something wrong with me, with my genetics? If people are born with that way, then perhaps it is something with genes. The thing that I have multiple grandchildren (2 thus far) that have this, reinforces that perhaps it could be something with my genetics. Then, you start realizing that maybe I am wondering about the wrong questions. 3. Perhaps there is NOTHING wrong with me either way. Perhaps these children or grandchildren were gifts because they Lord knew that they would need someone to care and love for them no matter who they were or are. Perhaps I should focus more on being the best Saint that I could be instead and do my best to be a good example to others, including family members. I should accept who I am, and in turn, who others are, while I also focus on the gospel of Jesus Christ. This is still a doozy of one though. There are times I am still plagued by issues #1 and #2. This is just me as a grandparent, I am sure that my grandkids have had these same types of questions (except about themselves, rather than as a parent or grandparent) much more prevalent and strongly in their life. I'm not going to stop loving them because of this element of their lives. Every child or grandchild has a different path, some which make me happier than others, but I still love all of them. They are part of my family. It doesn't matter what choices or things they do, I will still love them. That doesn't mean I'll agree with every choice they make (for example, if one of them turned into some sort of crime lord I don't think I'd approve of their choices), but I will love them no matter what. They need to know that no matter what they choose in life, there is always a place for them at home, and that they are loved and wanted as a part of our family. That's the best I can do. These grandchildren are now adults and they've made their choices as adults. I can either choose to be a part of their life, or I can choose not to be. I want them to be a part of my family still and I love them still. Part of this is just accepting how things are and how they are. In that, I have chosen to remain part of their life because as their grandfather, I love them. It's NOT an easy process at times (And as I said, sometimes I STILL wonder about #1 and #2, but this is still relatively new to me and I am still growing and developing with it) but it is what it is. When asked what would the Lord do I remember that he loves each of us as a Child of God. I put that as my example and try to do as he would (plus, as I've loved them all their lives, I still love them so it's not as hard as one would think to continue loving them). They are my grandkids and they still do things that I'm incredibly proud and happy about. I've loved them ever since they were born, and I'll continue to love them no matter what their choices are.

Yes, I have. Not the poster, but I have had some grandchildren come out recently as LGBTQ. It is an interesting situation. The best I can say to any in a similar situation is to LOVE them and to treat them as you always have. Remember that they are Children of God and he loves them just as much as he loves you. Respect their choices, follow the gospel yourself, and love them.

The verse above many try to say that it is talking about Gay Prostitutes in regards to Molech or the ritual prostitutes of other religions, but this means they ALSO are ignoring the context of the verse and it's relation to any of the rest of the verses in the chapter prior to it and after it. They ALSO are ignoring the Judaic interpretation of the scripture during the Lord's mortal ministry which was a basis for those around the Lord forbidding Homosexual relationships. These verses should be even MORE blatantly obvious that it is NOT talking about Prostitutes in the context it is given, but addressing point blank the variations of sexual sin. Unless one is trying to say that they are all just talking about Prostitutes (which it is obviously NOT doing) in the context of the verses previous and after, it is obvious what it is condemning here. I bring this up because the interpretation of the Jews at the time were in direct relation to the above verses. In his mortal Ministry the Lord would have understood these verses much as the Jews did and when talking about immorality, would have used these in the same frame of understanding as they did. Thus, when he stated If we want to get into the actual interpretation of the words, he was literally saying it in reference to the verses quoted above, which would say it was not "fornication" as we would say, but ANY sexual immorality as understood by the Jews as shown in their law (as stated above). Many ignore the context of what Jesus stated, but his words were in direct reflection to the Judaic law as it was understood at the time. Some like to claim that the Old Testament no longer applies (afterall, we now eat Shellfish and Pork...right?), and the Lord did say that certain things were no longer done (blood sacrifice for example). However, beyond what the Lord proclaims HIMSELF here, we also have Paul who states... Now, as the epistle above is to the Romans, some have tried to claim that he was merely talking about Roman culture and the statis where homosexuality was practiced among them, especially with male prostitutes. This ignores several items, the first being that he is not just talking singularly about that issue and a brief read of what he is talking about in the verses prior and following show that he goes into all manner of sins which are NOT predicated upon worship of the Roman deities or Roman culture. It is a listing of sins in general which were to be avoided, inclusive of fornication (and in regards to religion, it was NOT talking about female prostitution in that verse either, nor only in regards to prostitutes that were proud, or disobedient to parents.). The CONTEXT is being ignored by those of our modern era in an effort to JUSTIFY their SIN to try to claim that they are righteous, when in fact they are doing exactly opposite of what the Bible instructs. The second issue is that the Romans themselves did not misunderstand these things the Jews were teaching. There are commentaries regarding these beliefs by the Romans themselves. Furthermore, some of them ALSO comment on the problems that Romans had in this regard, especially at times with their nobility. Ironically at the same time the the Lord was having his mortal ministry, Augustus was ALSO trying to do a moral reformation in the Empire where he was trying to emphasis marriage between a man and a woman to produce children. He was trying to stress a core unit of FAMILY. It was recognized the relations that men had with boys and men in homosexuality, but he was trying to impress that these need not take away from their interest in their own marriage responsibilities (the problem was that many were favoring homosexual relationship over that of their marriage responsibilities in some instances, in others simply ignoring marriage responsibility in regards to children and family to pursue other arenas). To go with the idea that Paul was merely talking about Pederasty and Prostitution would be to ignore the commentary of what the Christians actually DID believe in the years of their persecution by others who commented on them. The above verse is the more common utilited regarding Pauls condemnation of Homosexuality, and yet, it is actually one of the less clear. From the context of the other verses it should be clear, but on it's own, and the actual words translated it COULD BE TALKING about prostitutes and pedestry. Of course, that also ignores the commentary on Christian beliefs and why they should be persecuted made by others cultures around them, but admittedly it COULD be talking on a more limited manner. It raises the question then why it talkis so broadly about fornicators, idolaters and adulterers if it was to be so focused on one specific immorality regarding men lying with men... I do not feel it suddenly changes the context from broad to specific and then to broad again (thieves, covetous, etc), but some say that is exactly what happens in this verse. Yes another verse which gets more specific Some say this is only about or pertains to Bishops, others that because the wording is even MORE specific than in Corinthians it is only addressing certain types of homosexuality...though I would disagree with the ideas... And here is where we get a direct relation in the scriptures for the Judaic tradition at the time that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed in part due to Homosexuality, and thus later it is used as reference by modern day Christians that it was one of the reasons why those cities were destroyed. Above we have many verses in the Bible that are utilized (not all, obviously, but many) to condemn homosexuality. While some may be able to be open to interpretation on their own, taking HISTORY into account, as well as the CONTEXT they are written in, I don't see how one could actually contest that it is condemning homosexual acts. Even the Romans themselves did NOT contest such things in regards to Judaic OR Christian beliefs. It was openly acknowledged, even if they, themselves, did not believe or practice such things. It has ONLY been in modern times (as far as I can truly tell) that there's been a massive movement by some who wish to remain christian but remove themselves from the main Christian theology to try to reinterpret them to say anything else. They've tried to toss questions where there were none before, and try to argue that the Bible does NOT condemn their homosexual activities, but only condemns a more limited expression in regards to youth and male prostitutes of those times. This is a MODERN movement (and relatively young) that is being put out today by those who want to feel as if they can sin, but not feel guilty for the sin. One can say it is only interpretation and opinion as that movement says it does, but it is one that I do not think the Church is going to accept that ideology or thought process for sometime...at least to my thinking. Now, I could be wrong, and if the prophet and first presidency said tomorrow that we, as a church, would now interpret the scriptures as so, I suppose I would have no recourse but to follow, but I do not feel that is going to be the course the church chooses to follow.

I was under the impression it was always in the hands of their Bishops. They may not have had to have a Temple Recommend, but I believe that they needed to have ecclesiastical endorsements (including for CES employees, at least in certain positions). The bigger question is how this applies to Seminary teachers. In theory, early morning seminary teachers are also CES employees if they are getting paid (many of them are in Stakes throughout the Church). This may or may not have a huge impact on that calling/job. I would HOPE it doesn't (that most of those teaching early morning Seminary were selected because of testimony and worthiness, which would include temple recommends, as well as perhaps having an interest in the students...aka...some of their children being Seminary age), but it could be that this change is actually more directed towards this position. If this applies to Early Morning Seminary teachers this is a good way to ensure that there is at least a modicum of minimum standards required in regards to righteousness. I would imagine this would impact this calling/job on a far larger scale than Seminary teachers in the Arizona/Utah/Idaho Corridor or BYU Professors. The calling also changes out a lot more often than those at BYU or teachers in Arizona/Utah/Idaho and Institute Professors. For some areas (especially branches, where this may actually be far more focused because the amount of people to choose from is so much smaller) this actually may have a massive impact on how they can choose or call someone to teach seminary.

I was routing for Bernie, even if he'd never win. She was absolutely terrible at what she and the democrat party did in order for her to get the nomination. I think that turned a LOT more against her simply because of how they did it. If I recall... For Republicans that year, I didn't like Trump at all. I believe I actually was more in support of Ben Carson and later Marco Rubio. For me, the worst candidates got the nominations that year.

Whoever he chooses, Biden has less than a year to guarantee that it gets selected. Because the Republican Congress pushed through it only required a majority, he only needs a majority to get his choice approved. He currently has a majority, so, nothing can stop him as long as he gets all the Democrats to play ball. There is no guarantee that he'll have the majority AFTER the mid-terms, so to be safe, he needs to get it done as quickly as possible. I don't see how this is the doom and gloom that some Republicans are calling it. It's still a 6-3 majority, even IF Biden chooses someone who is from the far left. Personally, I'd like him to see him give it to Merrick Garland, but I think that he's too moderate of a choice to appease the far left spectrum of Biden's associates these days. Would have been a fine choice though.

on 1). Can you give a summary of it?

I'm not in Utah, but some of the places we visited were Dead Horse Point, Escalante Petrified Forest, Fremont Indian Museum, and Goblin Valley. I'm not sure if any of those have virtual tours, but you could call the park office and see if you could set one up with a park guide who walks around the park (Fremont Indian Museum would be one of the easiest to see some of the bigger sites with a very short walk if I recall, it being about a half mile walk to see some of the bigger things right around their museum center). These are all state parks and have their sites with phone numbers here Discover Utah State Parks Idaho has some interesting national parks that no one really investigates or knows about, as well as bordering some others. Yellowstone is right there next to Idaho, and you also have Craters of the Moon (where I think they practiced for the Moon landings). Looking up National Parks in Idaho I found some interesting things. Top of my google search was City of Rocks National Reserve, but of more interest was the Minidoka National Historic Site (which talks about the Japanese interment, which would be a very interesting thing to go to with my SiL). State Parks also have a thing with Idaho where if you call them you may be able to set up an appointment to have a virtual tour by calling their offices. The link to the Idaho State Parks hub is Idaho Parks and recreation

I may be able to take it depending on how much time and information it requires.

I'm not sure I follow what you are saying? Actually, if you BELIEVE in the Bible and the scriptures, it's not tradition at all. It's black and white written by the apostles of God in the Scriptures which is about as core to doctrine as you can get. If you don't LIKE that it's written in the Bible (and I know there are some that try to ignore the context and format of how the verses that condemn this type of activity in the bible so that it's talking purely about prostitution instead of homosexual acts, but they are ignoring an AWFUL lot and by that type of reading all sorts of sins are also allowable such as bestiality, incest, and even murder) you probably are not having a key shelf with the Church, but with most of Christianity which still follows the Bible, especially the New Testament portion of it. Are you saying that what is written in the Bible is merely opinion and only tradition (rather than the word of the Lord?)? I suppose that's a way to look at the Scriptures. If you look at it that Paul was only expressing his "opinion" rather than what the Lord wanted...I guess you could toss that out. I suppose you could also say Jesus was only expressing his opinion (one of the more famous scriptures to discuss this is one oft ignored. It is where the Lord talks about divorce. Technically he was saying the only reason one could get a divorce for was for sexual sins...which...as he was well educated in Jewish Law at that point would have meant adultery, fornication, sodomy, and other sins considered as serious under Judaic law...meaning that homosexual acts were ALSO considered wrong in that regards. We read it today as just meaning adultery, but technically, under Jewish law it was any sin that involved someone other than a spouse of the opposite sex/gender that you did things of a certain type of act with). Considering the idea that the Lord was only teaching his OPINION is a good way to invalidate the New Testament I suppose which leaves us with the Old Testament (and no christianity). In that light, you could say that how the Jews interpreted the laws of marriage and adultery/fornication/sexual sin during the time Jesus walked the Earth and since is ONLY their opinion and traditions (which, if taking that view, could be correct seeing the variations in the legal interpretations of Jewish law occur within the different sects of the Jewish people), but it is an odd take for one who would be Christian. One of the things many ignore when trying to ignore what Jesus or Paul said concerning Homosexuality is that the both were well versed in Judaic law to the point that they could effectively prove their point to the greatest Jewish Scholars of their time. They taught in the CONTEXT of HOW the Law was understood in their day, which by default means that when they talk about homosexuality (or bestiality, or incest, or adultery) they were talking about it in the context of how it was interpreted (or the opinions and traditions I suppose you could say) among the Jews in their day. If you take it that they were talking to Jews in the context that these things were understood in their time, there is NO OTHER way to understand that they were condemning homosexual acts. NOW...that doesn't mean we should take a harsh stance against people in our modern day that in such a manner. In fact, condemning them ourselves is something I rather do not like. Instead we should treat them with love as they are our fellow brothers and sisters. We should treat them with respect and charity. Let them do as they want and let us do as we want. I was recently reflecting on the state of the United States and religion and was overwhelmingly grateful for the freedoms we currently have. I can worship as I will without the fear of being put to death or imprisoned until I refuse my faith. I don't have to worry about being fed to Lions or tigers or being burned at the stake. I have the freedom to think and worship as I will. I think loving others who have different dispositions than us is part of the commandments as well, so that we should first Love God, but next, love our neighbors as ourselves. I think too often we focus on where we differ on ideas rather than how much we should actually love others who have a different belief or hope than we do. In that light, I know it can sound harsh (what I wrote above), but in all honesty that isn't what I or we should be focusing on. Instead, as the two great commandments say, we should be focusing on loving others and showing love and compassion to them rather then condemnation. That applies to everyone of our neighbors and fellow children of the Lord. Something I need to work harder on myself, rather than focusing on the negative...focus on what I can do to be a more positive light for others.

On why some members who have known the truth of the gospel seem to turn so hard against the Church after leaving it, it has been spoken of in the Book of Mormon regarding this type of thing. Alma 24:30 and in a similar vein in Alma 47:36

In all reasonable excuses, Engines have become a lot more complex than they used to be. I can still change the oil, and other basics, but these days take it in to the shop in many instances. A reason for this can be explained very easily with why I take my car into the shop to change the battery. Changing the Battery used to be extremely easy. You'd unsecure it, take off the cables, take out the old battery, put in the new battery, attach cables, secure battery and you are done. Last time I had to do this they had the battery secured in a new fashion where the bolt was unreachable without a special tool that I did not have. I had to get the special bolt sized tool (luckily one of my neighbors had it) and then inch it in an impossible space where turning the tool was almost impossible anyways. Than, I had to maneuver the part out and undo yet another bolt to actually loosen the battery itself. After that, replacing it was relatively the same until I had to secure it again. Trying to get the portions back to secure it was like trying to thread the eye of a needle while blind. It took a half hour just to get the bolt finally in place for the first portion to secure it. The second also took almost as long. It was NOT that easy. It seems that whoever designs cars for some companies these days likes to make self-repairs REALLY difficult for the common consumer. This is why I just finally started taking it into the shop for all maintenance just to avoid the pain of it. The cost of tools to do some of these things would cost me just as much as the shop charges in some cases. This is why my last vehicle we got a Dodge. I looked at the engine of the Dodge and felt relief. The engineer actually put space under the hood so you could actually get to things! There are still basic items that are rough because everything requires a computer these days. Calibrating certain things NEEDS the right computer to do it or something like that....which is ridiculous. Repairing the modern vehicles has become a LOT harder than it used to be. I can remember taking apart and engine and transmission and putting them back together when I was younger. Now days I would try that as the computer itself would probably detect half a dozen faults and refuse to cooperate. That appears to be discord and I would assume they are able to talk to each other via their microphones, but they could also chat if they so choose. I don't use discord (popular with some students though), I prefer to use Zoom after getting used to it over the pandemic with the school. The School has made the move for many of us to Microsoft Teams, which is built into our computers these days.

Depends on the Charge and the state. Looking at Utah Code and Regulations I come up with 76-5-1-7, of particular interest is 76-5-107.1 which took effect last year and covers threats against schools. Utah Code threats against schools enacted 9/1/21 In Utah, i think it is borderline on whether this would be successful in court or not. I'd probably pursue via 2b3 in effect for a Class C Misdemeanor. I think a good defense lawyer may be able to prevent conviction if they wanted to take it to court, the question being if it would be worth it to fight it. I don't believe this occurred in Utah, so the laws are different. In Virginia this appears to fall under the category of 18.2-60 which covers threats of violence. If it was a written threat (which it was not) it would fall under a Class 6 felony. As it was made in person, and not a hate crime, you could charge, but need to prove verifiable fear was caused. She had guns which indicates in my opinion that she had the means to carry out the threat. The question then is whether that put the victims (or school board and the attendees of the school) in reasonable fear of harm or apprehension. As I said, I think she said it in an emotional moment. That said, I think it has a better chance of being successful in court under Virginia law if they chose to pursue it. it appears they have charged her, but whether they can convict is a different question. If they choose to pursue it further, I hope she has a decent lawyer. A bad one and I think they'll convict her. A good one and I think she could get off.

I believe there WAS a letter of sorts from George Albert Smith. It also declared it doctrine in regards to how the Church viewed the matter. We have been blessed to see much of the fulfillment of the prophecies given by the early prophets in the Church. There may be similarities we can see, but there are also differences. One of the MOST racist things I believe I've seen is from the LGBT movement in general, especially the LGB portion of it. Someone who is Gay or Lesbian or Bi can meld very easily in with everyone else if they so desire. No one can tell what their orientation is if the individual chooses not to reveal it. On the otherhand, minorities do not have that ability. Their skin tone and features are not things they can simply turn on or off depending on how "safe" or "unsafe" they may feel. It is on 100% of the time. Saying that the struggle that LGB individuals suffer from is equal to that of the racism minorities suffer is EXTREMELY racist in my opinion and is trying to lessen how much racism actually affects and impacts minorities. The closest comparison they could have is the discrimination that those who have transitioned and are Transgender suffer from. That discrimination is strong enough that it contributes to the problem that there is a HIGH amount of suicide among the Transgender community (enough to warrant a great deal more concern than has been given). Most of the LGB portion of the LGBT community cannot even IMAGINE this type of discrimination much less experience it. Racism is FAR more severe (as well as that against Transgender) BECAUSE you cannot hide it, it is 100% on all the time. By trying to say it is the same, LGBT are trying to lessen how bad Racism actually and to my mind is an EXTREMELY racist type of take. This is not unusual from what I understand. In discussions with peers I understand that there is actually a GREAT DEAL of racism in the deeper parts (the portions of the community that focuses more on making LGB a foundation of their identity as well as politics that go with it) of the LGBT community and terrible racial incidents occur on a regular basis against minorities in the LGBT community itself. With that in mind, before the revelation there was a great deal of conflict in some areas. There were some members that were pushing very strongly for Blacks to be able to have the priesthood. Others felt very strongly that they should not have the priesthood. When the revelation happened, I did not see many leave the church over it (this is purely anecdotal evidence, I had no access to actual membership numbers at the time). The members accepted the revelation and proceeded without complaint from MY Perspective. I was much younger at the time and so perhaps I missed a thing or two, but from what I saw, everyone accepted the revelation. It turned out to be well timed and a great blessing to the church. The church grew at an unprecedented rate after that revelation and for several years afterwards. I'm not sure what would happen today if the First Presidency came out with a similar revelation regarding LGBT folks. I know I may have to pray sincerely about it. A MAJOR difference in this is that the Blacks and the Preisthood is NOT something that is mentioned in the Bible. It is briefly touched upon in the Pearl of Great Price, but no where else is it really discussed. Homosexuality on the otherhand is discussed and condemned in the Bible and directly by apostles who saw and spoke with the Savior, with a greater emphasis on Paul who may not have been one of the original twelve, but is seen by some as the apostle specifically sent to the Gentiles. Many try to make excuses of why his statements do not apply to homosexual activities (trying to say it only applies to prostitution or other areas), but in general they are ignoring a LOT of the context and how it is worded and phrased in order to try to make that excuse. From all normal readings of the scripture, it is a strict condemnation of Homosexuality (in the same way that other verses would condemn incest and bestiality which if read in how those excusing homosexuality did, would read VERY differently as well). Which is where I think it would get very problematic very quickly. The scriptures are rather explicit on the condemnation of homosexuality. I feel I may have great difficulty if a revelation came accepting Gay Marriage as a temple opportunity. I feel I would have a great deal of praying in dealing with it, but that is me looking at it from the perspective of how I feel currently. Some have suggested ONE form of temple ordinance that could stand in for it, but it still doesn't excuse the explicit homosexual actions. It used to be that men could be sealed to men as fathers and sons or brothers to each other. This could be a way to seal men to each other, but this still would not allow homosexual activities nor actions as they would still be banned as per scriptural and modern statements. I think the major difference has already been pointed out multiple times in the thread already. Those who are LGB (but not necessarily T, that stands on it's own and unlike the other portion of LGBT, someone who has transitioned MAY actually feel discrimination similarly to how racism is acted upon as it can occasionally be very obvious about if the individual transitioned or not) can perform all the functions of a church member if they are worthy. They are not automatically banned due to how they feel. Someone tried to point out that they cannot be sealed to someone they love in this life. This assumes that marriage is a sealing of people in love. This is UNTRUE. A sealing is not dependent on people loving each other (though it probably helps). In Joseph Smiths time, and definitely during Brigham Young's time, there were marriage sealings that had no love in them (at least yet) between those being sealed together in marriage. Sealing unites families together for eternity, normally with a Husband and wife being sealed and thus their children born after that are automatically part of that unity. This is ONE ordinance, normally called a sealing ordinance. It is done DIFFERENTLY than other ordinances. I cannot get into the details, but the ordinance to seal children to parents is different than the one that seals a husband and wife together for eternity. It is done by the same power, but the form and function behind it is different. In that same light, IF (and that is a BIG IF) Gay Marriage ever became an ordinance allowed in sealing in some form, it is SEPARATE AND DIFFERENT than that of a Man and a Woman being sealed by it's very nature. It is NOT the same thing as a marriage between a man and a woman. In that light, NO ONE has access to an ordinance that unites to men in a Gay Marriage for eternity. If a LGBT individual WISHES to participate in the Marriage Sealing as a Husband or Wife, that option is always open to them if the strongly desire it (but it may not be a wise choice for many of them). ALL ordinances available to all members are available to those who are LGB (but not necessarily those who are T) if they are worthy of them. This is a MAJOR difference between when Blacks could not hold the priesthood and the current situation where many of those who are LGBT want a NEW ORDINANCE CREATED that allows Gay Marriages to be sealed for eternity in temples.

Sort of. When we were doing scouts the scouts on occasion had done something called a Jamboree on the Air. They contacted other scouts in other areas of the nation and world if they could. I was not the operator, merely one of the adults ensuring 2 deep leadership.

He didn't really go much into it. It appears he was able to talk today. It sounds like he was having a harder time earlier this week whenever he was down with it, but I don't know anything else. Didn't get a chance to meet the investigators either. I SHOULD have introduced myself before the meeting began, but I was just sitting back and waiting instead.

As they were investigators and were sitting next to the missionaries I would hope the missionaries follow up. It was a strange thing that happened at church today making me think perhaps sometimes speakers shouldn't say certain things. However, on the other side of the coin I'd rather know than not know, kind of opposing ideas conflicting with each other.

In today's environment where threats are made and then followed through with in regards to school shootings, her statements were extremely foolish. I think the police departments should take her statements extremely seriously. I'm not sure how they can assess how likely a school shooter is to fulfill threats, but they need to do a full assessment of her. I THINK she was an extremely frustrated mother. I think she said things in the heat of the moment. That's what I THINK, but that's not enough to guarantee the safety of everyone else's kids. The following solution is dependent on the state she is in (some states this could go in accordance with the threat of violence laws and temporary fire arm retention, in others it is outright illegal for the state to do currently) Perhaps the best thing for now is to confiscate her weapons (or ask her to give them up in the wake of her statements for a temporary time, and she then WILLINGLY gives them up to sway any fears away) for the next six months and then return them after that waiting period is over. She can remain free, able to do as she wishes, but it also it shows that she really is not going to go shoot up the school. IF, as I think, she was just caught up in the moment, I would feel bad if she was imprisoned or fined for how frustrated she must have felt. AT the same time, seeing the school shootings that have occurred over the recent years, and how many times there are threats prior and then the shootings occur, I think such threats SHOULD be taken seriously. Even if we think she was not serious, precautions should be taken. This is why I would hope for some sort of compromise (such as I suggested above, this way she shows that she is not going to actually be able to follow through with the threat as easily, and she still remains free). I know if someone made a threat like that to a school my grandkids were going to, I would want the police to do all they could to make sure that the threat could NOT be followed through with. It's up to the police and judges to decide though.