JohnsonJones

Well, today an interesting thing happened in Sacrament meeting. We had some investigators there, or at least I hadn't seen them before with the missionaries. The missionaries were wearing masks, and in fact, between me, a doctor, and them, we were the ONLY ones wearing masks (the investigators were wearing masks as well). Now, in all common sense I imagine that people should know that there is an explosion of Covid-19 cases going around. I imagine the missionaries told them the general attitude of some of the members in our area towards it. I think that these people would at least have looked around and seen the numbers of members who were not wearing masks. The Speaker gets up today and starts that they've been sick this week with Covid, but that the Lord has blessed them to be well enough to come and speak today. They laughed about it and continued on. Those investigators got up so quickly (almost immediately after the speaker said this) and practically ran out of the Chapel. It was fast enough to surprise me. They appeared to have a startled/surprised/alarmed look on their face. Not sure how else to say it. It's my interpretation of their face as they rushed out, I'm not positive exactly what they were feeling, but their eyes were not happy looking eyes as they rushed out. Now, it is possible they had just gotten some bad news or a relative had been rushed off with an emergency or something, but the timing of it was right after the speaker proclaimed he had Covid. I imagine if that was their response, we won't be seeing them again in sacrament...or at least for a while. It's a shame because that's the first investigator's I've seen at the Church for months. I'm TORN over whether the speaker said the right thing or not. Saying they had Covid was a GOOD thing because it told us that they actually had it recently and could infect all of us there. I casually made my way to the Lobby along with my wife after that, though I didn't leave. I tried not to make it obvious either. On the otherhand, saying that in the middle of sacrament meeting seems to be an unwise thing to do. I may be wrong as to the reason the individuals left (though the timing and speed seem to indicate why they left to me), but it may be that saying things like the speaker did (and I assume they were telling the truth, it could have been some twisted form of a joke seeing how they laughed after saying it) is not the best thing to say in a Sacrament meeting talk. In fact, that is the other feeling I have is that the speaker should have not said anything about this at all. As I said, I'm torn on what should have been said. The Speaker was good to inform all of us, but at the same time I feel stating this caused a little more turmoil than if the speaker had just remained silent.

Yes, I believe you stated If it applies to the goose, it SHOULD apply to the gander...should it not? I don't know Senator's Reid fate in the afterlife, but I hope that he get's exaltation. I hope that you get there too and everyone in this thread. I can't say I am aware of Harry Reid's shortcomings, but I DO see a LOT Of idolatry in the world today, and a LOT of it by the Saints. They put their own political beliefs ahead of religion and the Lord. It has become very obvious over the past few years. However, I have come to a realization in the past few weeks that the Lord is an extremely merciful being. He could raise children from the stones if he wanted to, but instead he suffers those who are already his followers in their weaknesses. He could have outright destroyed the Nephites in their wickedness on multiple instances in the Book of Mormon, but instead spared them at times so that they could return to him and have progeny that eventually would become the most righteous group of people we have on record in the scriptures. There were times in our own church where the Saints could have been destroyed, much of it due to their own pride and greed at times, and yet they were spared. From them came a multitude of blessings as the Church moved west and became a great manifestation of his glory. Even in Abraham's time, the Lord was willing to spare an entire civilization if there were only 10 righteous people in the entire population. There were not, but he was willing. I'm sure there are plenty of righteous people among us today, even if many are worshipping their idols of political policy, political figures, or worldy aspirations instead. I have been reminded of these things recently as I've read the scriptures and pondered over the Church's response to the pandemic. It could have been easy for the Church to take a hardline and stated that those who are anti-mask and anti-vax are not welcome...but that is not the Lord's way. We have been ASKED repeatedly by our leadership to do certain things and of course, a great multitude of Saints have chosen not to do these things. If the Lord's servants took a hardline it is very possible that we may lose those opposed to the requests of the servants of the Lord very quickly. Masking up NOT just in Church, but in public places and social distancing is something we hear people talk against almost everywhere, including this site, despite an apostle of the Lord asking us to do so and a more forceful letter asking us to do so more recently, less than half a year ago. Then the Prophet not only set the example of getting vaccinated, they strongly suggested we do so also. I have heard many speak against doing such things and making up all sorts of fanciful excuses why they do not need to. A great many have also criticized the Prophet and First Presidency in the past few months (which could not be easy for them to bear, but they do so, or have thus far...we should pray for them) while railing against these items. The Lord has no desire for people to fall away from the Church, even with their weaknesses. He has a great deal of mercy in trying to save our souls...even when we are kicking and screaming against it. Each of us have our own problems and difficulties of which we fall short. None of us are perfect. I don't know any weakness of Harry Reid, but even if I did know, it appears that the General Leadership of the Church held him in a high regard...and if they did, who am I to question? It seems that many Church members have confused their political party for their religion. They worship their political views rather than the Lord. They feel that the Church has to be one party or another, that those who are not Republicans or the Far Right, or Trumpers (or whatever political affiliation the member is) they must not be righteous. Officially, however, the Church is POLITICALLY NEUTRAL. The support neither party equally, while supporting members of each party equally. Just because someone does not do what one wants them to do or think politically, it has NO BEARING on how that individual is religiously. Furthermore the Church is not just an American church, it is politically neutral regarding the politics of other nations as well. Now, I fall short of the Lord's example by an extreme measure. I am no where close to him, though I strive to be. I do not have great opinions of those who try to hide the truth or despise the truth of science, or those that try to deny science and call facts mere opinions or make them political issues. We saw the Great and Abominable Church (under the guise of the Catholic Church in Europe) do that to scientists in the 16th and 17th centuries, inspired by the Adversary to try to hold back the wonders and comforts of our modern age. We've seen the great travesty and destruction that doing these things to scientist or ignoring science leads to. Personally, I do not feel this is the Lord's way of doing things. I think the Church follows a way more on how the Lord would have us do in regards to modern day science. We have Church leadership that appears to believe in science as a tool the Lord can use to bless us and advises us to follow good scientific advice regarding the pandemic. I have found that I am not as patient as the Lord by any means in my regards for those who are speaking out against the Prophet, the First Presidency, and at least one apostle and their statements regarding the pandemic. As I said, I have a LONG ways to go, and need to work on myself to get more humility and patience. I need to be more loving. Luckily, the Prophet, First Presidency and the apostles are led by the Lord and he is merciful and loving to all of us. I imagine that he loved Harry Reid just as much as any of his other children, and we should understand that the Lord's mercy and love is extended to all men who come to him and worship in his name. Harry Reid was a Saint in good standing with the Church from what I know, who are we to question that?

This is an interesting take on the matter. It raises a question in my head regarding Reid and others that may be in a similar boat that are also Saints in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We have a TON of Saints during the recent pandemic that have 1. Disagreed with the Prophet not only not followed him in what he asked us to do, worse, taught directly the opposite of what he asked. 2. Some of the above went beyond this and even called him and certain apostles very slanderous and negative things with much cursing and nasty language on social media 3. Disagreed (or is that lying, in relation to how one may say Reid lied) with Experts trained specifically in the field dealing with disease and pandemics, experts of medicine, and experts in science on the dangers of the pandemic or how to deal with the pandemic. 4. Continued to spread false information regarding treatment, severity, and mitigation of the pandemic even when a preponderance of evidence and the medical establishment were telling them the truth. Now, from much of what I've seen occurring via media (thus it could be mistaken about such things as well), most places in Utah now have a majority of people refusing to wear masks or social distance even during the most recent surge, and a great majority in church wards are not wearing masks or doing what the prophet asked them to do currently (as if his requests for us to do such in August has expired just because they decided they wanted it to expire [and if he DID say it was over...if someone would actually POST that it would be appreciated because thus far I haven't seen it]. Of course, if I hadn't made this clear, this is not necessarily what is happening, just what I hear is happening in certain areas according to children and grandchildren I have in the areas and have seen on clips of the areas via various media. It could just be anecdotal rather than accurate, but I haven't seen anything to counter it thus far. Recent news clips from the area seem to show very little mask wearing in many locations). If you feel that way about Harry Reid, what are your feelings about what appears to be a majority of the Saints in the Utah Valley area in this instance.

I have (in my current opinion of course). I've also seen students (and unfortunately staff) that have tried to make issues about this. It's not just about THEIR rights apparently, they feel that anyone who does not agree with them is curtailing their rights as well. We saw it quite a bit with masks and social distancing in 2020 where companies would require masks and there would be those that would refuse to wear one or social distance and harrass the poor employees about the policy. We see it now occasionally with policies at the university where students feel it is their RIGHT in this situation to refuse to follow university policies and implement their feelings on the matter instead. They feel it is abridging their "Freedoms" to require such. We see it at Church (which is private property) where the Prophet and First Presidency themselves asked us to vaccinate and take precautions and there are MANY who refuse to do so. Ironically, many had previously said to follow the Prophet no matter what. Many said they would have happily done what their pioneer forbears did if required...but looking at the metal serpent (aka...wearing a mask, social distancing, or getting vaccinated) was FAR too much trouble for them. They refuse to follow the requests of the owners of the property of the Church. There are state governments that are attempting to ban mask or vaccine mandates, meaning a PRIVATE company in some states may not have a vaccine mandate if those state governments succeed (and vice versa, as it is perhaps left to the states in the wake of the Supreme Court decision, some places may have masks mandated). state efforts to ban or enforce mandates What do we consider them not contesting the idea that private business should be allowed to mandate vaccines if they so desire?

One of the things about marriage is to be happy with oneself whether or not one is married or not. If one is NOT happy because they are single, or because they are not married, it is very probable that being married is NOT going to be the cure for making them happy. It may, instead, be a way to make others UNHAPPY. One needs to be able to be content with themselves before incorporating others into a relationship...at least in my opinion. In that light, whether one is gay or not, it should not matter on whether one can be happy or not. If they are unhappy because they feel attraction to the same gender instead of the opposite gender, perhaps they are focusing on the WRONG things in life. My advice in that situation, regardless of who it is, is to focus on other things that make life worthwhile. Perhaps, work on serving others, or improving oneself, rather than trying to get others to be the crutch to do it for you. The way I'd suggest is to seek first the Kingdom of God, seek to be the ideal son or daughter of your Father first, and then seek other things (such as self improvement, etc). That may not be the way everyone wants to go. Find something else rather than lust, or greed, or pride, to sate one's desires, and seek instead for things that can improve yourself and others instead. Find a hobby or reading history or books, become passionate about music, study nature and science. There is SO much in this world where you can focus on things to find wonder and excitement rather than focusing on our base desires. Find ways to make one happy beyond the basic focus of the world (so lust, hunger, alcohol, and other base things should not be what we try to seek out for happiness, but rather things that increase our knowledge and ability or things that help others increase their knowledge and ability). I find too often people define themselves by their base desires. I do not think this is a path to happiness, and those who think this is how to define their relationships will find less fulfilling lives from them than those who find happiness within themselves and seek to spread that happiness to others. Those who share happiness, in my opinion, will do better and have more fulfilling lives than those who try to derive it from others. Unfortunately, when trying to convince someone that they should seek to be happy on their own (especially, when they are so deep into the idea that the only way to be happy is if they are able to get another person, sometimes specifically a certain person, other times a certain gender or sexuality) to make them happy, they are unwilling to listen. Nothing one would say will convince them at that point, and sometimes telling them this will only drive them deeper into depression. It can be difficult, and the situation people find themselves in is a difficult one. If they GET what they THINK they want, at times it will bring a reprieve, though this happiness may be fleeting and is HIGHLY dependent on someone else (which means, they can make you lose it just as easily) rather than being in control of yourself. The more permanent solution is NOT to make it so that others are your source of happiness, but to be a source of happiness for yourself and for others. Two individuals that are founts of happiness will not only find happiness within themselves, but also in turn will make their partners and friends much happier by default. It is a thing which aids not only you, but others as well.

You know guys, if I was the Stake President, I might be looking for radio operators for the Stake's Emergency team (or ward, some wards also had them in the past and a need for radio operators...just in case). Not a Stake President or (probably) in your Stakes though, so...has no effect.

Welcome back.

I hear people say this, but I'm not seeing it happen anytime soon. The banks seem to be more careful these days and thus the loans are on much steadier ground. I have three grandkids that are married, none of them own a house at this point, and two of the couples are living at their parents in some capacity. I have worries that this is the new economy with the younger generation unable to buy homes because others want more money than they can afford. I feel some of it is due to the West Coast. The Chinese and others have been allowed to buy property in the US and with them using the Housing on the West Coast as investment properties, have shot up the price all over. Rather than refuse to sell to them and keep property values cheaper in California, you had people sell their homes to them until prices reached over a Million (or two million in some places). Now, you have those in California selling their homes and moving East to buy homes in places like Idaho, Utah, and Colorado (where many of my kids live and thus my grandkids). They have no concerns about others and have jumped up the prices in other locations as well (from my perspective, I could also be wrong). It probably wouldn't fix as much, but I'd say make laws that disallow individuals without US citizenship from owning property in the US or a similar law like that. Other nations have instituted such. Second, ensure that private housing (so, houses themselves) CANNOT be owned by a corporation or business for longer than a year. If it is a foreign business or corporation, they cannot own apartments or any living facility, such things can ONLY be owned by US businesses that are a majority owned by US citizens. I'm still not sure if that would cure the problem or not, I hear the effects would be minimal, but I feel something has to be done if we want to help the young generation of our grandkids be able to have a lifestyle that is anywhere similar to what we had when we were young adults. We could afford houses when we were first out of college or working our more permanent career jobs. Now, I have at least two of my three grandkids who have their husbands with what most would call decent jobs and still not being able to afford a home of their own. I have other grandkids that also are on their own at this point and are also living at home due to the costs (I should add...most of them that I am talking about are currently in Utah and Idaho, not where I am actually living) in the housing market. Part of this is that I am concerned about my grandkids and their welfare. I see that most of my generation is too busy trying to make housing an investment or so greedy they can't be bothered to try to figure out something to help our grandkids. Hopefully the younger generation under mine (my kids generation) will do something. I am concerned what will happen if prices continue to rise in such a manner for several years as that can make property taxes too expensive to pay (which nothing is being done to really curb those either), but a more immediate concern is where are all my grandkids going to live! I don't own enough places or have enough money to help them all. If we don't look out for the up and coming generation because we are so greedy we can only think of our own money and finances, what sort of future are we leaving for them?

I have been blessed (Thus far) to not feel the effects of it as much. Things are a little more expensive, but we have adequate for our needs right now. What I am watching carefully are the rising property valued. The Greed in this nation knows no bounds and making property an investment rather than a place to live is not a good thing. I feel before long it could hurt many people that are not rich. We own our home, but rising property values cause rising property taxes. If it gets too high, I won't be able to afford our taxes anymore, which by default means that we would have to lose the house. It's not to that point, but it is a matter of concern when I see how much property values have jumped over the past year. Another decade of similar price rises (if I live that long, which i Hope to) and I could very well find myself in that situation. If it continues rising at this rate just a few more years I can't see myself ever stopping work (I didn't intend to, but at least it has been an option to this point). I'm not sure how my grandkids are going to afford houses and such in the future. I have a grand-daughter who is a full-time RN and she lives at home due to house prices. I just see unadulterated greed where property and housing are concerned and no consideration for the next generation. I recently sold a property of mine for what most would consider a steal. I sold 2 acres and a 2500 sq ft house for 150K. In a setting where smaller houses are going for 500K people think what I did was scandalous. I wasn't out to make a profit (and I STILL made one from the price I bought it for many years ago), I was about trying to make sure it was a just deal for those who needed a home. I feel as if pride and greed have gone amok. I can understand WHY the United States government WANTS to have inflation (despite what some may say). Trump did some terrible things. One of those was to back track on a conservative value that had been pushed by the Right for years. The value he abandoned was to control the budget. The Republican values USED to be to rein in spending and to stop such large deficits. This was abandoned. Trump made a Tax plan that largely benefited him and others and also cut back on the income the government could take (he made some minor tax changes that benefitted some americans temporarily until those provisions run out in a few years...but the big cuts...the ones that hurt the government were for those who were rather wealthy) . In his few years he caused a massive jump in the debt. This is a problem which the Republicans caused, but did not want to deal with or face. Unfortunately, it was ONLY the Republicans that had been for controlling the debt and reducing it in the past, the Democrats have always wanted to spend....spend...spend. So now, we have this growing debt that no party wants to deal with...unless it is to make it worse. One thing we learn is that to deal with a national debt, inflation is good. If you owe $1000 dollars, but you can make that $1000 worth $100, but retain the same power of purchase (so that while you had an income of $500 when you incurred the debt, but with the new inflation you now have an income of $5000 due to the worth of the dollar), you have made it MUCH easier to repay that debt. What was once 2X what you brought in a year, is now 1/5 of what you bring in. This can be GOOD for government debt...even if it is very BAD for your constituents. I fear, this is where we are at and how they are looking at balancing the debt now rather than more fiscal measures which the Republicans USED to push instead.

A little bit. Enough to get in trouble giving advice for it. I've done it occasionally as I've made books for the students (where I didn't want to go the traditional printer's route, they charge a LOT more than if I do it myself. edit - meaning a publisher will sell the books to the student at the book store for $60 -$120 where if I do it myself I can save them money and they buy it for $10-$15). Several different ways of doing it. Sewing will give a much stronger binding but takes longer and special machines. Gluing is cheaper and faster (and normally will last a semester for the students, most of them only want it for that long anyways...and 1/2 of those books look like they never got opened anyways). If you have a local printer, most have binding equipment that can bind it how you want or need to to be bound.

There's a difference between my gut feeling and what I feel when being told something by the still small voice. My gut gets it wrong many times, while the still small voice normally is the right thing to do and if I ignore it I usually get in trouble. Sometimes they conflict. One weird item that happened was with my vehicle one time when traveling. It broke down on the High way. My gut said it was time to call a Tow Truck and get a rental car. The Spirit told me it was the Radiator and that I was leaking fluid somehow. What's more is that it then helped me get it to a nearby gas station, get anti-freeze, figure out one area where when I poured the coolant in it was coming right out and how to avoid that (I was literally pouring it in and it was coming right out) what to do next to get the cooling system working, then feed in the anti-freeze and get it fixed up enough to get to the repair shop. The Spirit can guide you to do things you know nothing about at times. Though quiet, it can actually be quite directive at times with specific instructions. Unfortunately I had already called the tow company based on my gut feeling, so I had to cancel the tow. Getting the Two truck wasn't bad, in fact it was probably a good idea and would have helped me out. However, being able to use the vehicle and drive it to the repair shop probably saved me money, time, and effort overall and was a tremendous blessing from the Lord. Two different things from two different sources that were separate courses of action. I wouldn't say my gut instinct was wrong in that situation, or at least it wasn't going to harm me and could have helped, but the Lord helped me find a better solution that was a great blessing for me instead.

UGA are now the National Champions (College Football). Last time this happened I was in my 30s. I am absolutely delighted! It brings a smile to my face. And we beat Alabama to do it! First Quarter was nail-biting. Second Quarter was neck and neck. Third Quarter was still hectic. And the Fourth Quarter was when the Dawgs ran free. Great game, but the outcome is the best part of it all.

Joseph Fielding Smith felt that it meant that family relationships continued beyond the grave. That once you were sealed to each other, that was it, you were connected eternally. Infinite bonds within an infinite existence. It was also apparent he felt that these bonds extended beyond just the Celestial Kingdom from various writings of his. Brigham Young and Joseph F. Smith also imply this, but I think Joseph Fielding Smith was the most blatant and forward in his teaching on this. It is because of these bonds that he said parents can bring their children to the Celestial Kingdom regardless of WHAT KINGDOM the child would inherit in the afterlife with the exception of outer darkness. In this, the sealing bonds are so strong that the family unit is still sealed, HOWEVER, if that child has merited a lesser reward, such as the Telestial Kingdom or Terrestrial Kingdom, they will still have that same body as they have attained. They will be allowed into the Celestial Kingdom, but will not have the Celestial Bodies thereof. IN addition, if they merit a punishment, they will not be able to come to their parents until after that punishment has been met. These children will still be able to be with their parents and families in the Celestial Kingdom though, but will not have the powers and abilities therewith. I also follow this idea, or belief. It is one reason why I feel that the 3 degrees of the Celestial Kingdom are as such. Those who are allowed to be with families in the Celestial Kingdom but do not have the powers and awards thereof are those who compose the lowest degree of the Celestial Kingdom. Those who have all powers and abilites, but cannot have children or offspring because they chose not to be eternally married are those who are in the Second degree of the Celestial Kingdom Those who were sealed in an eternal marriage and were faithful are those who are the Highest Degree of the Celestial Kingdom and have an eternal increase.

It's bad, but I remember many decades ago when we had the day of the Tornadoes in the mid 70s. Over 100 tornadoes hit within 24 hours. Some thought it was the end of the world come. Over 100 people were killed with 100s more injured. I believe it is known as the day of 100 tornadoes or the 1974 Super Outbreak. The US has times of bad tornado outbreaks every so many years. It may be climate change (and that could be the Earth protesting our sins, and in some ways our physical injury to the Earth may also be a reflection of our spiritual damage we are doing to our spirits and the souls of those around us) or something else on this most recent carnage, but this terrible weather that caused so much grief and pain is not the first time such devastation has come to these areas, nor will it likely be the last.

I love books and especially those that cover history and other facets of life. I know though we will not be able to bring the physical books with us in the hereafter, I wonder if we will lose the books themselves though. I think that perhaps that my collection may be there as well (if I am lucky), at least in spirit. If not that, then in memory of my own (and perhaps I could then recreate them with the right materials?)...or perhaps that's a degree of worldliness I have yet to purge from my thoughts. I do wonder though if all the items we have here that we can have in our memories are really gone (in the afterlife), or we may still touch upon them from time to time if we so desire.

It is clear from his writing that he felt that little children should not need to be baptized from the start. That he felt that was the doctrine already, but he inquired nonethless. He was sad because they were arguing about this. He found out that they were arguing about the matter but, asked about it anyways. The way he condemns anyone who thinks this way (that little children need to be baptized) show his thought process later. He was very unhappy people even thought about it in that way, and that he ALWAYS felt that there was no need for little children to be baptized, and in fact says of those who think that they do that he feels this way about them... These are not the words from someone who didn't not feel strongly about the matter already. He already felt in his personal beliefs that little children should not need to be baptized and could not imagine that anyone who was Christian could think or feel otherwise.

There are several reasons, some of which I won't go into here, but are rather important in and of themselves. I'd say the first portion of this will go into the scriptures. In Genesis, Chapter 2 we read So here we read that Adam was alone here, and there was no helpmeet or helpmate for him. One of the reasons for the creation of Eve, or his wife, was that he would have a companion that would be there to help him (and in our modern terms, the husband and wife help each other). Part of the reason is so that we have someone to face the world with, that will be our constant companion. Next, we see that to make Eve, Adam was separated from part of his own body. This is both symbolic and literal I believe. This means that Adam, if we compared to someone complete and whole, was now incomplete. In order to be complete he needed to have that portion of him become him. In this, the only way for him to be complete (or for a man to be complete) is to have a woman joined to him (both literally, figuratively, and spiritually). I won't go into details of how this is done physically (I think most here probably can figure that one out), but we also need to be unified in spirit and mind. This is where we also become whole, or as one, united by the Lord in a union where we complete each other and make each other whole. Now, turning to the Pearl of Great Price in the Book of Moses we also turn to Chapter 2. Here we find yet another reason for a Man and a Woman to be married and united. This is so that we can have children. We and our children (and mankind in general) also have the command to rule over the earth, or to subdue it and have dominion over it. Now, going more into a personal interpretation... There are those that may be sad because they cannot fulfill the last commandments I listed in this life. We believe that these ideas are not just for THIS life, but eternal ideas that can apply to us. As we will all be raised in perfection in the next life, those who fulfill their covenants and rise to the highest level of Heaven will be able to fulfill these commandments in that life, being able to also multiply and replenish, as well as all other promises. Thus, some of the important reasons for a Man and a Woman to be married, not just in this life, but in the eternities are... 1. To have a companionship, to have an eternal companion. 2. To be whole and to be one with another. This being one can ONLY be accomplished with a creature like ourselves and yet different, thus it MUST be a Man and a Woman (or Woman and a Man), not something alike another (so no Man with Man or Woman with Woman, such cannot be whole as they are incomplete as of themselves, they cannot complete the other). This being one with another is an essential part of WHY we are married for this life as well as eternity. 3. To have children. And as I said, in my personal belief, this applies not just to this life, but in the eternities to come as well. This life is just a pale shadow of what to come, and as such, what we experience here is as a shadow of what we will feel in the life to come should we be righteous. This means that the three items above would be even MORE important for us to have and experience in the next life than it is in this one, and to be complete and be whole as the Lord intends, we need to have eternal marriage. Obviously, this just touches on the foundational issues of marriage, and mostly talks about the here and now, but as the here and now is a shadow of the hereafter, this applies in that manner as well. The same laws of the matter apply here, as would apply there in many ways. I could talk a great deal more on this (I can have posts that go on for a great while, but that tends to bore many) but hopefully this talks about some of the very basic ideas of why we have marriage as such an important ideal in our lives within the church.

An interesting thought regarding food. When the price of food rises to around 40% of income (I believe that's the cut off in general) it normally speaks of civil disturbance where citizens of whatever nation that is the state, rise up to overthrow their own government and replace it or have civil strife to a degree that it causes a civil war or close to it in some instances. If we hit the mark where food storage is necessary to survive, it is very possible that there will be a great deal of strife whatever nation has this situation. I believe "preppers" in general also stock other items in their lockers than just food in many instances.

As @Just_A_Guy pointed out, this was written from the perspective of the wicked and what they expect. It is like the child who got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. They (well, many kids at least) have a sense of dread because they know they were caught doing something they shouldn't and now are fearful of the consequences or that the consequences will be even worse than what they think. This post doesn't cover it entirely, but a short summary which still doesn't cover it in full, but the basic jist of it all (meaning there is more to it, but this briefly covers such items in general). Those who sin and do not repent, or cannot repent due to how serious the sin is, will still need to pay some price for their sins. The Lord does not force anyone to accept the atonement if they do not wish to. We have our free agency to choose good or evil. Those who choose evil and then choose to reject the atonement have their sins weigh heavily upon them. As they rejected that which could save them from punishment, they must pay that punishment, or the "fruits of the labors of their works." As we know from what the Lord went through, that is a very bitter cup. These are they that did NOT accept the gospel or the testimony of Jesus, but do not reject it so fully that they are immune to see the consequences of what they have wrought. They will see the consequences and suffer the penalties, and when such happens will realize why. They will not be so full of hate (a few will be) that they will reject it still, but will yearn to be saved from such. When they are suffering from the results of their sins and not accepting the atonement, they will have the opportunity to finally see a chance to come to the Lord again and as such, every knee shall bow and they shall be redeemed. There is a bright side to this though, that for the most part, eventually, almost everyone will turn and accept the atonement of the Lord. For those who are suffering as such who rejected the atonement in this life and in their lives, they will not be completely abandoned to their fate. In the end, they can be saved in the Kingdom, though at a lesser glory than others. They will finally be saved and as such, after they have knelt to the Lord, coming into a glory that surpasses all understanding.

At the time the Nephites were growing incredibly wicked. By the time of Moroni, most had abandoned the gospel for their own ideas and ways. This also means that they probably fell into developing their own religions and ideas about the gospel separate from what had been taught by the Lord over 300 years prior. In the same way that we have different Christian denominations that have taught many different things, many of the ideas with in these denominations today were thought up separate from what was taught. Men decided to interpret things and give allowances to things in their own fashion, rather than what was originally taught, at least in accordance to one another. This means while you have one denomination today preaching that you must be baptized by immersion, another teaches that a symbolic sprinkling is enough. While you have one denomination teach that you are saved by grace without any effort on your own, all you need to do is say the words and you are saved and then you can commit any sin you wish and still be saved, another says that you must continually confess your sins and repent. The Nephites were in this same bondage of sin and regression, where everyman interpreted the gospel and the ideas within the gospel in their own mind. Most of them, in the end, simply decided that the gospel was wrong and they went and did their own thing anyways, doing every sin without regards to commandments. You find many of them doing fornications, murdering for gain or putting importance on riches over that of the Lord and other such things. Into this we have Mormon who has been raised in this community and sees them growing more wicked every day. Where before they at least recognized the Lord, they now are falling away from even recognizing the atonement and the Lord and doing away with any semblance of the gospel. You have them loving sin more than the Lord. This also gave rise to many false ideas and confusion over what the Lord initially taught. One of these things where people were arguing was about the Baptism of Little Children. Mormon felt that this was wrong and that little children should not need to be baptized. There were others who interpreted the gospel (much like we see today with people who disagree within Christianity itself on the right way to do certain things) differently and felt that everyone needed to be baptized. Thus, as one of those who could talk to the Lord at the time, Mormon prayed and found that his initial inspiration was correct and wrote his son Moroni about it. That epistle is what we read as Moroni 8.

I don't think the court will toss Roe vs. Wade itself. I think there is only one, maybe two, of the justices that have the stomach for it. The entire case would be built upon tossing out the idea of depriving someone of life, liberty, or property without due process regarding medical rights (and that would extend to other items that have come in lieu of that such as HIPAA and other items which could feasibly be threatened if it were tossed). On the otherhand, I could see them scaling it back to the original wording of Roe vs. Wade where it can be taken by the states to require a full medical evaluation by a state certified physician and that the attending physician would have other such things as hoops to jump through to approve the abortion, but I do not see an outright ban. No state, even Mississippi have gone so far as to request or require that yet, and none have even put on as strong a requirement as those put upon doctors by states after Roe vs. Wade came into effect. It would seem implausible to toss out that which no state has actually requested. My opinion is... It would seem more likely that they take the case into consideration, and how it falls under the interpretation of the Constitution today, which I think could create a scaling back. This means that it could turn more into how it was done or seen shortly after the Roe vs. Wade decision, later in the 80s, or even as late as the early 90s before (vs. Casey). At the very least I expect they might consider overturning (vs. Hellerstedt) the more recent cases over the past decade. Some hope it would be overturned because of the argument that has been held by Thomas. This is that the original claim of coverage with the 14th amendment does not apply and hence the constitution itself makes no mention of this or any medical preclusions or inclusions. I find this a dangerous determination if it is what the court decides. If it is, it opens an entire can of worms that, using that as precedence, could open a whole different section where your right to privacy with medical records and the determinations of medical care are all overturned. I don't see it happening, even with the court make up as it is, but I have been wrong before. If it is overturned, several states have laws ready to go (Utah's is more lenient than many, allowing abortion for rape, incest, or medical emergencies which is in line with the Church's policies...but the Church doesn't have it's policies as strongly in other states). The strictest would be Texas which has legislation in place that would go right back to it's initial law prior to Roe vs. Wade which outlaws all abortion with no exceptions. If an instance where the mother's life is in danger a doctor MIGHT be able to perform one, but would fall under the scrutiny of the state and if the state judges he was incorrect, could be charged with a felony all the same anyways. I don't think the Church today would support the ideas as what you would see in Texas law if Roe vs. Wade was overturned. That could, ironically, place it on the wrong side of the law in some states (if they have a state clause which says an organization cannot take a stance that encourages individuals to act against state law...it could possibly see the Church as an aggressor in this as the handbook is now online for public viewing...with the Church's only defense in such a situation being separation of Church and State...which...by default would mean NO letter for or against the situation by the Church so they could not be seen as pushing a political position).

Yes, it was about Doctor's rights overall, something that MANY miss in the case. The situation was in Texas, where all abortion except that to save a mother's life were considered illegal. As such, even if the mother was on birth control and an unexpected pregnancy occurred, regardless of the situation, whether rape, incest, or simply that the parents were unfit, it was problematic to have an abortion. The suite than was that it should NOT be the state having the ability to interfere, but the medical practitioner's call. Roe vs. Wade at Cornell Law One of the key and salient points of the case In which, yes, you are correct that it was regarding the Right to Privacy...initially, though it was found that the Constitution does NOT blatantly actually include that right within it. Thus, the stage. Texas outlawed abortion except if the woman's life was in danger. Jane Roe, a single woman, found herself pregnant and unable to have an abortion. She went to a medical doctor, who had performed other abortions previously, and been charged with felonies pursuant of the fact in the State of Texas. Roe felt she should have the right to have abortions without state interference (very much in light of how we see the right to abortion today after the decisions in the 90s) while the doctor claimed that the cases against him were invalid and that in pursuant of them he should be allowed to have the following... Privacy of the doctor-patient relationship and the Right to practice medicine. Thus, they brought the case which eventually ended up before the Supreme Court. At the time, the state argued that as the baby had already been born (yes, ironically, though Roe vs. Wade is regarding the right to abortion, the actual baby involved was NOT aborted) and thus the case was void. The Supreme court decided to continue it anyways. Now, off the top of my head, I believe the relegated the doctor's prosecutions back to the state, but they did latch onto his argument regarding the privacy guaranteed by the 14th amendment and the 9th amendment. They looked at it more in regards to the 14th amendment as a DUE PROCESS though, rather than specifically privacy. They also agreed at the time that the woman should be allowed to have an abortion, but it was NOT as it was after the 90s decision. It was a relegated choice...with the pertinent paragraphs as follows. Taking into account that the State also has interest in the health of the patient, thus a limit was set, but it would be made by the attending physician in consultation with his patient. This allows for cases beyond that of simply saving the life of the mother, but also allowances for other reasons such as mental health (which is normally the excuse of why it was given in cases of rape or incest, especially when you have the situation of a young teen who could also be harmed mentally by an abortion itself at that age...the determination being which is more damaging to the youth, the abortion or pregnancy and giving birth). The Church's official stance is... Note, that prior to Roe vs. Wade, these exceptions would be considered illegal in Texas and many other states, with the only one that really was acceptable in many states of the time being the mother's life is in serious jeopardy (health in some states would be inconsequential, unless it was the mother's life, in some states it was still illegal and a felony at best if it was done simply because a mother's health may be in danger...including physical and mental health). That said, it does not mean one should just go out and have an abortion, it is something to prayerfully consider all the options even if one falls under one of the above circumstances. However, as the church allows for these exceptions, by policy, the support the decisions of medical care that have come to the US after Roe vs. Wade took effect. They do NOT support the later decisions explicitly from what I can tell. Hence, why, from what I understand of Church Policy today, with the exceptions spelled out (which would have been ILLEGAL prior to Roe Vs. Wade for the Church to even promote, much less put in any official document in several states in the U.S.) they church supports Roe vs. Wade as it was initially determined. That does NOT mean it supports what many THINK Roe vs. Wade said, or what people mean when they talk about it today (normally they are referring to how it is seen AFTER later decisions over the matter, specifically one notorious case from the early 90s) where it is a woman's right to choose...Roe vs. Wade being seen more as granting them the ability to have it determined by a Medical Professional (as determined by the state) rather than simply their own choosing by going to a clinic and having it basically given out without other considerations of the situation. As the Church probably wishes to keep it's stance with the exceptions, I HIGHLY doubt they will retract something to that effect. I could see them (as I mentioned before) reiterating the sanctity of life and the preservation of it, but I do not think they will put out any statement telling people that Roe vs. Wade is blatantly wrong (I could be mistaken as well, but knowing that they have Oaks there still as well as the Prophet Russell M. Nelson and Elder Rasband, I don't see that occurring...yet).

AS the church actually supports Roe vs. Wade...I HIGHLY DOUBT that it's going to release the statement you are hoping for (at least, in it's official policies it supports the decision made by Roe vs. Wade). On the otherhand, as the Church does NOT support pro-choice (which many get confused with thinking the decision from the 90s equates the same decisions as made earlier via Roe vs. Wade), I could see it releasing a statement regarding the sanctity of life and the respect for it (but probably not worded as strongly as you would desire I imagine) to reinforce it's position that abortion is not something that should be taken simply due to inconvenience or convenience, that it is in fact a heavy matter regarding the life and souls of the children of our Father. If Roe vs. Wade gets overturned, it does not mean the end of abortion in the US necessarily, more than likely it would turn the matter over to the states to decide. I don't expect it will get overturned in that manner, too many do not want it overturned, including MANY of those who are supposedly against abortion. IT could mean that NO abortion could be performed in some states, EVEN in cases of Rape or incest. It could mean if the mother and the babies life is in danger...NO abortion could be performed, even if doing so could save the mother...they would simply die because the medical procedure to save the mother's life would be outlawed...OR the doctor performing it would have performed a felony. IF enough states push for this idea, that a doctor performs a felony if they perform an abortion to save a mother's life, it could lead to a side effect many have not considered. The doctor than has a choice, to either commit a crime, violate their oath which means to cause no harm and protect life (because they would literally be letting someone die who they could have saved), or go to a location where they are allowed to actually make medical decisions without the interference of the state. If enough choose to do the former or latter (Rather than the middle choice) those states which choose a strong arm tactic may find themselves with an even greater shortage of certain types of doctors in medical fields. There are long standing ramifications to think about in regards to whether or not it gets overturned. I personally do not think it will get overturned. The short term ramifications could be bad, but the long term ramifications could be disastrous. Instead, I think there could be a dialing back. The idea tossed forward is that there is no justification under the Constitution in support of abortion...and I agree with that in regards to the LATER decisions of the 90s. HOWEVER, the initial decision dealt more with liberty and the pursuit of happiness as well as whether the state could interfere and demand a medical doctor do something against the best health and ability of the medical community and patient. The ruling was that the government should NOT be able to force or order a doctor to do something (similarly, it cannot order forced sterilizations or order the deaths of people simply due to medical conditions...etc) against the doctor's best ability to treat their patient. THE DOCTOR...NOT THE STATE is the one that is allowed to make those decisions. Instead, I could see a dialing back on how freely we have made it so that it has become simply a matter of choice in whether it is convenient or not.

Well, if you will do reddit, there are two places on Reddit (the others are junk and to be avoided) that have faithful forums for members. Be aware that the moderation is rather strict and a LOT of stuff that goes on here (for example, antagonizing other faithful members that would be tolerated here may not be tolerated there) would not be allowed there. They try to keep a strict faithfulness to the gospel ideology there, but it can be a good place to discuss topics about the Church. The Faithful Latter-day Saint reddit A Believing Latter-day Saint reddit There are connections to deeper discussion groups, but from experience, they limit those who can join until they are familiar with what type of poster they are. Political gospel, as we sometimes see here, is NOT normally allowed on any of the reddits I listed above or that are connected to them for deeper discussion from what I've seen. I had difficulties finding forums and places to discuss gospel topics without the hinderance of many of those who are opposed to the gospel or the church. In that search several years ago, this was the only place I found at that time. After this, I have found very few locations other than these forums. The above two are ones that I would suggest. I haven't found any other forums (like this one) that have the safety for members to discuss topics in safety, though I did find the above reddits that are relatively safer than most other places on the internet. The first reddit tends to be better in material, but less active. The second is more active, but you get bleed through occasionally of some rather bad topics that are a little antagonistic toward the gospel or the church. I am a professor/teacher of history these days, and have some insight into gospel topics, but I find many do not really want to discuss these things with me in detail. I am not specialized in Latter-day Saint Church history, but do amateur history research and enjoy reading on it. I imagine I have more breadth than most, and far more than many of those who attack the church (but most of them do not actually want to hear what a historian has to say about it, nor about the sources they rely on, being more set in what they've already decided than having an open mind), and try to defend the church in a kind and charitable fashion when facing such, but I really don't enjoy their constant attacks which is why I find refuge in more hospitable locations for faithful members like me. However, I find that many do NOT want to actually discuss these things with me, as the combination of historical ideas and my own faith in the gospel can turn people off on both sides of the divide (those who don't want any faithfulness or belief in the topic tend to hate when I bring up historical aspects, and those who hate historical introspection on items hate it when I include that in my commentary on something that they rely on completely by faith). The irony, is among those who are Church historians or study Church history, I am probably on the edges of the far right conservative side of things (most of those involved with Church history these days tend to be more liberal on their take of Church history). With that in mind, I would suggest that some books could be excellent items to get and read if you are interested in some deeper topics and subjects from Church history and doctrine. These slant FAR more conservatively than what is popular today though and may not be what you may be interested in. They are deep though. My first suggestion would be the Answers to Gospel Questions by Joseph Fielding Smith. Answer to gospel questions on Amazon I then would say a good base for reading would be Doctrines of Salvation Doctrines of Salvation on Amazon Next up would be Jesus the Christ Jesus the Christ by James E. Talmadge on Amazon Then Articles of Faith also by Talmadge Articles of Faith on Amazon A longer read but very good for a knowledge of Church history and the background of Where our scriptures come from and the context of what was thought and believed at the time of the later portions of the Doctrine and Covenants (after Joseph's death for example and when the Pearl of Great Price was canonized) is the History of the Church, the original 7 volumes (not including the index). It is abhorrent to many of the Church historians today (so be forewarned) and they've come out with their more liberal and revised history called the Saints (of interest, The History of the Church is a valid historian's resource to use...Saints...is NOT). It can be difficult to find. History of the Church Once, or if, you manage to get through all of that, if you want to get into DEEP doctrine, or deep topics...I would suggest reading what was once a Sunday School book, utilized to study the teachings of Joseph F. Smith. Some of this stuff can be very confusing to people today, so reading it with a great deal of prayer and humility is key to understanding them. They were not so hard to understand in the past, but times and teachings were different and what we were exposed to was different than what is done in the Church today. It shouldn't be so controversial these days, but it can be...but it is stuff drawn from various sources (some more dependable than others) regarding statements and teachings of the Prophet Joseph himself that we do not find in our everyday material. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith You can still find it (at least you could a few years ago when I visited the Church bookstores) published by companies close to the Church today so easier to obtain than others. Some of the material though is very deep and in relation to what the Church teaches today, I would HIGHLY suggest the items at the top of this list to be read BEFORE you dive into this book...just my personal thoughts. Gospel Doctrine (selected portions from sermons by Joseph F. Smith) Gospel Doctrine Also Bruce R. McConkie's Mortal Messiah series McConkie's Messiah Series Another classic by McConkie is Mormon Doctrine Mormon Doctrine again on Amazon Going even deeper, and possibly even more confusing to people (countless people have been confused in reading this book and is favored among anti-mormons at times because they can sow confusion among those who do not understand what Brigham Young actually said or meant...though reading the Joseph Fielding Smiths Doctrines of Salvation and Answers to Gospel Questions normally answers these items pretty clearly or helps to clear these items up...and it should as he is the Grandson of Hyrum Smith, the Great Nephew of Joseph Smith, and heard many explanations of these things directly from his father who was the Son of Hyrum Smith himself"). Discourses of Brigham Young is an excellent book, but as I said, it can be tricky, so I only suggest it IF or ONCE you have a VERY SOLID grasp of Latter-day Saint doctrines and ideas and can use them to guide you in your understanding of what Brigham Young is actually saying. Discourses of Brigham Young Another controversial book these days which should be read later is the History of Joseph Smith by his Mother Lucy Mack Smith. Same things as the above book as you read it. History of Joseph Smith by his Mother Lucy Mack Smith The Miracle of Forgiveness by Spencer W. Kimball is another excellent book, more regarding the focus of repentance and the atonement than others The Miracle of Forgiveness Finally, a series of Lectures that used to be included at the end of the Doctrine and Covenants, but were taken out. They are highly informational on the basic concepts of faith from the time of Joseph Smith, and were in the basic understanding of Saints from that time up until probably Harold B. Lee and Spencer W. Kimballs time period. Lectures on Faith is extremely good to read if you can find a good copy (unmarred by additions of others who would change what it says). Lectures on Faith The above Four books are HIGHLY controversial in some ways in the Church today and as such, as I said before, you should ONLY read them if you have a very solid grasp of the modern teachings of the Gospel and how it is structured as some of the items in the books listed above may not seem initially to conjoin with our modern teachings. ONLY with a solid understanding of the gospel can one really understand how it is seamless from then to now. Because of this, the above 4 books can be favored by those against the Church to try to shake the faith of members which is why I don't put them near the top of the list and only suggest it AFTER all other items are read and one has a VERY GOOD grasp (good enough so that they cannot be shaken by the wind blasts of those who are against the Church) of the gospel and the faith that sticks them to it. All the above books though can be good reads for a deeper understanding of the gospel, and I find them more illuminating in many instances than trying to discuss it with others on the internet. I love books though, so reading books is right up my alley. There are more books than these that are useful, but I think the above give a basic grasp of foundational topics pertinent to the Gospel, it's deeper doctrines on the surface, and a better understanding of the ordinances and principles of our Church. A reminder though that I am considered on the FAR right conservative arm of Church history in how I look at the gospel and it's doctrines in relation to Church history. Much of what I think is important is considered scandalous or even down right hated by the more liberal arms of Church Historians today, and some of the stuff I have suggested is now being attempted to be buried by most of those who are not as conservative minded as I am (yes, that may seem odd, but in this I am considered extremely Conservative, even far right, in Historical circles, regarding these materials and suggesting them). AS such, it may not be the list you want to read if you want to be more mainstream or in the more mainstream of gospel today...though that tends to not go quite as deep into subjects and study as the Conservative arms do. Others who are more mainstream could suggest a better reading list for mainstream history and theology inline with modern history and it's interpretations within the church for you if you wish to go in that direction.

Just an opinion from what I've seen on the case... With the Rittenhouse situation I don't think the DA had much of a choice in the matter. It became a political item very quickly. From what I've seen, they initially felt that he was innocent and there were not going to be any charges filed. Once it made the major news circuits and various political forums and sites, it became a very hot topic and those in charge felt they HAD to bring up a case against the kid. This is one reason I think the DA handed the case off. A major case like this is normally NOT something you hand off to an Assistant. The DA didn't want their hands involved with the charade of justice they had to do. Even if he was guilty, there wasn't enough evidence to expect a conviction in the first place, it was too easy to prove otherwise. In this instance, I don't think it was a terrible person, it was that they had nothing to really go at him with, so they grasped at any slight straw sticking out to try to make some sort of case against him because that was demanded to them by their political superiors. Just my opinion on it from what I've seen thus far.