JohnsonJones

Well...on the COVID-19 situation, the US is halfway there to the number of deaths of the Spanish Flu. (338K vs 675K in the Spanish Flu). spanish Flu had more deaths in it's second year than it's first...and we are just at the horizon of the second year of COVID...without any interventions it could mean that it will be worse in the next year (especially, if like the flu it can become something people get more than once, or especially with mutations. The Spanish flu's numbers didn't really continue to be added in regards to the pandemic after the first year or two, but the Spanish flu continued to mutate and be an annual flu for the next 30 years after the initial pandemic. Luckily, it mutated to be a less serious strain eventually, but we still have remnants of that strain affecting us to this day!) Of course, it shouldn't even be that close with people knowing what happened last time in regards to wearing masks and taking precautions (One of the lessons of Spanish Flu was that those who wore masks and took precautions had fewer cases and fatalities, as well as primary spreaders would be military and schools...)...then again...we see the very same problems this time around that we did last time (history sometimes is a repeating pattern...hopefully it does not repeat that same pattern into the 2030s that the 1930s had). Fortunately we DO have many advances in medical care and medicine and hopefully the vaccine is effective. If it is, it's a race against time at this point on whether we will hit the same number of deaths that the previous pandemic had or not. Most studies I've seen say we've underestimated the actual number of deaths (groups can hide the cause of deaths, but not the NUMBER of deaths that exceed what it should be, and the only real abnormality this year has been Covid...since we've all been locked up and unable to go anywhere), but even at 338K...as I said, we are halfway there to the Spanish Flu numbers. I just wanted to comment about the numbers we are at and not having hit the end of the first year yet. 338K will undoubtably be an outdated number by the time I post this, but it is rather marked in that it means we are halfway to the Spanish Flu numbers. Hopefully with the better medical advances we have today and the vaccine coming out we will not reach that dreaded 675K number.

Doesn't DuckDuckGo rely on many of the same search algorithms as Google? I'd imagine you'd want a spider search rather than what Google uses currently, but I'm not sure if there are any search engines that you can utilize that do not do similar things as Google. I think Bing is one of the big alternatives, but has it's own censored options. I, personally, still use Google and don't have a problem with it, but that's probably because it is currently the biggest kid on the block so everyone caters to it's search engine dynamics.

An interesting take you have, BUT, essentially, I don't see anything wrong with what you wrote. Yes, there are those that have taught that the Lord in his mortal ministry was married. One of the ideas behind this was that the Lord would have fulfilled every covenant and performed every ordinance (if just as example of what we should do and follow) that we are commanded to do. For example, the most famous is his baptism in the River Jordan. If we follow through with that Logic, this would also mean that as marriage is an ordinance (and a sacrament for Catholics...though Catholics believe differently on whether the Lord would do such things in many instances) that the Lord would have done all things that are required of us, especially in what we consider an ordinance. However, as it is NOT spelled out, it is left officially as conjecture on our part today regarding how the Church views it, whether that is your average member such as I conjecturing, or even the words of someone as Orson Hyde. In this light, the church would probably say that Orson Hyde was expressing his opinion, much as they could say I also have expressed an opinion (though on this, right now, the above may more be an idea rather than a set opinion of mine). Neither could really be considered the official doctrine of the church today as far as I am aware.

Well, she may or may not get her wish in a little while. A new Hymnbook is being composed, and I suspect that some of the less popular hymns may be removed while other hymns not previously found in the hymnbook may be added. I do not know which ones will be found or not found in the new Hymnbook, but there will be those thrilled and those disappointed if they have specific favorite hymns that do or do not make it into the new one. Overall, it's a single hymn. I didn't get a chance to read that posting on facebook, when I clicked the link it appeared to have been deleted already, but I think Nature is intimately connected to the divine, for afterall, it has it's creator as do we, and how we align with the commandments our creator gives will help us in regards to our joy and happiness we may experience now and in the future.

Normally I'm much busier during the Christmas season with all the visits we give and get, but this year (and good for them for doing so) almost all the family has elected to stay at their homes and we are doing the same. There's only one exception. Thus, I've not had as much time. Instead, gifts were sent by mail, and phone calls and other ways of communicating are how we will talk this year. That does not mean it's just me and my wife though, and though sometimes I yearn for a simple holiday where it is just me and her, having others to share that holiday with can bring such joy. We've had some family living with us for the past few months during the entire Pandemic situation. As normal, I get up earlier in the morning (normally for work, but otherwise it can also be a habit). This morning was different as it is Christmas. I had bought a ton of Candy from the Store, and then hid it in the Garage (which of course, my child, though probably not the grandkids, know where I keep it after all these years). This morning I got up and carefully separated it out and then put it in the stockings located throughout the house. I'm quite excited as they saw me go to bed last night, but when they wake up their stockings will be full and gifts will be under the tree. It's always fun to see young faces light up on Christmas morning. That said, I have a friend that is spending their first Christmas alone this year. They too have family that is not traveling, and this is their very first Christmas alone. I'm not sure if it will be before the rest of the family wakes or after (depends on when the family wakes) I'll go off to visit this friend with treats and gifts in an attempt to help them so that they can also have a Christmas with at least someone there to share some of it with. Giving is far more good than receiving. I hope all of you have a very Merry Christmas.

You should read a book called Supreme Power by Ted Stewart, which is a very interesting commentary on the evolution of the Supreme Court. Supreme Power : 7 Pivotal Supreme Court Decisions that had a Major Impact on America One thing I see that has changed and dramatically altered how the Supreme Court works is not the Supreme Court basically has been enabled to write laws. A prime example... With the Gay Marriage laws that have come into effect, previously before it had this power, the Supreme Court could have ruled laws AGAINST Gay Marriage as Unconstitutional, but it could not have mandated laws to be made to equalize them. Thus, there would be a vacuum until such laws were made in accordance to recognize Gay Marriage on the same footing as Traditional Marriages. Instead, the laws were conformed immediately to take into effect the Gay Marriage as the same exact thing in a legal sense (which is writing new laws) as other Marriages. In my thoughts...of course. Traditionally, when originally created, the Supreme Court had the ability to rule things unconstitutional and mandates in accordance, but not necessarily the ability to actually write and create laws without the approval of Congress being involved with the process...once again...in my feelings on the matter. Ironically, even Judicial Review, which we take for granted today, was not inherently felt to be given until over a decade after the Constitution was written, but this review has expanded today into what we see where not only can it strike down, it can also mandate laws put in place to enforce such things (for example, striking down a school districts regulations and ordering it to pay fines in order and to create new organizations...thus by ordering new organizations to be made to create equality, also dictating new laws in order to mandate such actions to occur). Because of this, those who wish to force the creation of new laws which otherwise cannot be passed via the traditional means either by vote or through Congressional legality, have pushed for more Judicial activism regarding the Federal Courts all the up to the Supreme Court. How far this could go is questionable, but with more extremes placed upon it, one could see that this may result in a Crisis in the future.

I took a picture of them yesterday evening with one of my grandkids. Saturn seemed to turn up very dim in my picture, not sure how to increase the exposure on my phone without ending up with a lot of shaky pictures. My hands are not so steady, so if I increase the time it takes for the picture for better exposure, it ends up streaky. With a good timing though, where we see the planets, it ends up with Jupiter bright, but Saturn very dim (but seeable).

Be Happy for him that he's married. There is something similar (or at least it seems similar) in the Church today. I've known a few members that have entered into communications with women in other nations outside the US who are also members of the church. They talk via email and then get married. I've helped a few of them get the process started to get their now married spouses over to the US so that their spouses can actually come live here. It feels a little odd to me that they chose this route, but ultimately it seems to be what they and the individual who married them want for various reasons.

Andromeda Strain?

You guys are amazing with your pictures. I went out with the few family that has been staying with us over the past few months and we saw the star (Jupiter and Saturn...after we were able to figure out where it was, it was the brightest thing in the sky just about if you don't include the moon). I talked it over with my grandson and said that the last time it looked anywhere close to that was 800 years ago (I think that is right). It just looked like a really bright object in the sky last night, but I think it will look more separated tonight (we plan on going out again to look at it).

A guess on my part.... There used to be two different genres. One was based on science and normally had ideas of where that science might lead in the future or how that science might be used. Items in this genre originated ideas such as Frankenstein (sometimes considered one of the first Science Fiction novels...though, ironically, many consider it horror instead) or Twenty Thousand leagues under the Sea. It could be written off in the future as it was based on ideas of science at the time it was written, but normally it had predictive ideas which at times came to pass (submarines for example). On the otherhand there was an field which was more like fantasy. Everyone knew it wasn't really science fiction, but more based on the fantastical. A common name for it at times was Space Opera. It had no basis in science generally. Flash Gordon is a good example of this type of fiction...and later...Star Wars. Today, these two genres seem to be blended together. It doesn't matter whether it has a basis on science, or if it is just purely fantasy, if it happens in space or set in the future, no matter how fantastical and unrealistically possible, it is still grouped into Science Fiction. My guess (regarding @Traveler thoughts) is how much some of those who (at times atheists or agnostics I suppose) ascribe to science in scoffing at Religion are also deep into what used to be known as Space Fantasy/Space Opera where there is nothing really scientific about it, but is more fantasy than anything else. I have noticed that many that read the types of books found in Science Fiction today are also in many instances greatly into Fantasy Novels and Books as well. In that light, I'd say for many they are joined at the hip as genres, and you find it that way at Bookstores today also, where you have a Fantasy and Science Fiction section instead of one section being Fantasy (and that may also include the Space Fantasy items) and one with a more hard Science bent or Science Fiction. PS: I have noticed that there seems a great preponderance in Utah of those who read the Science Fiction/Fantasy of today. I'd say there is a FAR higher percentage of Sci-Fi/Fantasy readers in the Utah areas than there are in the rest of the US, and absolutely more than there are in the rest of the World. I know my daughter (currently lives in Orem) there is a massive Fantasy and Science Fiction Fan as are her kids and the rest of her family. They live in Utah in the middle of the Sci-Fi/Fantasy communities around there. Great people (though that may be a little biased coming from me).

You have to have radioactive water (in the ocean) to create Godzilla...

To be honest, I have NO IDEA if he has multiple wives, what they look like, or any thing else regarding that. Anything in that arena is pure speculation on an individuals part. There are those that infer that the Lord may have multiple wives, but I do not know myself on this matter. I do not know what they would look like for that matter.

The other thought I had was something that Dalin H. Oaks said many decades ago in an interview where he basically stated Doctrine can be indistinguishable from Policy. In this though, the big difference is how often Doctrine should change vs. that of Policy. Doctrine shouldn't change that much or that often, while policy can change on a whim dependent on who is writing something (such as the Handbook). It's that ability for the Handbook to change that quickly (they have people assigned, and though the First Presidency goes over what is written, I don't think they write every word of the Handbook, that's more the bureaucrats that are trying to convey how the First Presidency prefers things to occur) that has me concerned in regards to this statement. When you consider that this Handbook is now open source, there will probably be those that conflate the statement discussed to mean that the Handbook and all there in IS doctrine and when the Handbook changes...there will be some that may make a big headache for others. It's one part which I FEEL (not that this is a correct way to express the feeling, I'm not sure how else to voice a concern about the way it's worded though) could be worded better to make it more specific to avoid headaches.

The wording doesn't separate out the handbook to specifically state it only defines policy. In fact, it combines all the items to define both doctrine AND policy. If we take it literally, the Church Handbook now is on equal standing with the rest of the items (scriptures and teachings of the Living Prophets) as being doctrine, and the others are on equal standing with the Church Handbook regarding policy. The wording doesn't parse it as you put it. In your example above, it is also misleading in it's statement. It is assumed the reader correlates the order of words to animals, but it equally could be saying Huskys (or do you mean Huskies?) make the best kinds of small housepets... OR...more aptly, that the BEST housepets found among both Large and small are Huskys, cats, and hamsters...inferring that these three are the best types of any sort of housepet in those size ranges. If you wish to say that Huskies are the best Large housepets, rather than saying they make better housepets than many small housepets...you'd want to define the word to what you mean. As you stated it, you basically said... Cats, Hamsters, and Huskys make the best pets among any pet large or small. Another example along the lines that you stated... The Best vehicles and the best drivers are found in Ford, Chevrolet, and Toyota. What does this mean? Taken as written it means the best vehicles are made by Ford, Chevrolet and Toyota. It also means that the best drivers are also found in Ford, Chevrolet, and Toyota. You have to define it more in order to be specific. If you said, The Best vehicles are made by Ford and the Best Drivers are those who drive for Toyota (now...now...I know people would argue this is NOT true...but this is merely an example of wording....not real facts here) it would actually specify what one meant. Thus, in referenced to the sentence that I took out of the Handbook, I would hope I could assume that it means that the Handbook is only for matters of policy, and that the Scriptures and the Teachings of the Prophets are what defines Doctrine...but that isn't what the actual sentence says.

They made the change for no more handbook 1 or 2 a while ago (or so I thought). Of interest, when I go to the Gospel Library app (or whatever it is called now days) I still have other handbooks listed there, but it is crossed out. Only the One Handbook is highlighted now. According to the article, they are around 60% done now? With the remaining portions to be updated in 2021. I did find this update a little..concerning??? Or maybe it was worded the same but I just noticed it since they highlighted it? Policies and Guidelines If this is new, did they just elevate the General Handbook to Doctrine!????? If so, I'm not certain how I feel about that. It could be an alarming precedent, seeing how easy it is to change things up in it.

@Carborendum Question on some of your numbers... That looks like you list $710 for an apartment? Is that right? You live in Texas...what part? With the rental areas I'm familiar with, I'm either overcharging (doubtful considering how fast they rent out) or something is odd with your number. 710 is how much it might have cost 20 YEARS ago...but not today. Not if you live anywhere near San Antonio, Austin, or Dallas, or anywhere in between. 710 would be for a one bedroom apartment in a decent area 20 years ago. You could have gotten something down to 500 in a more crime ridden area. Today, if you pay less than 900-1000, you are probably living in a very crime ridden area where no one else wants to live. You can get something in the range of maybe 850 that could be acceptable if it's small (studio or one room), but at two rooms you are looking at a minimum of probably 900 and more likely 1000 unless you want to have a chance to be mugged each day. I DO SUPPOSE on the otherhand that if you just live in West Texas in the boonies. YOU CAN get apartments dirt cheap there, but there aren't really any jobs out there either. You also state that Walmart workers make $15/hour. I admit, I do not know how much Walmart workers make, so I looked it up. According to this site... Payscale.com walmart hourly rate Which doesn't quite seem to equal $15 and hour. You also account in that Walmart worker would be working 40 hours a week (full time, that is if they are actually going to get to 31K a year) which seems HIGHLY unlikely these days. Walmart, unless you are a supervisor or Store Manager normally tries to limit hours under 40 hours a week to avoid paying many of the workers benefits. Are you mixing numbers? 20 year ago numbers with numbers from today? I couldn't find Amazon Delivery Drivers pay scale on the payscale site, so looked it up otherwise. On Glass door it lists 16/hour as the average which appears to be around 33,260 a year. I couldn't find the exact listing for a driver for 0 experience, but it did say this in google with reference to Glassdoor At $13 an hour it would be around 27,040 annually and at $27 an hour it would equal 56,160 a year. You said you based the budget off of when you didn't make much money...You spent $1,596 on groceries a MONTH!!! Call me floored. If I account for inflation, back then I would have been probably spending between $450-$900 a month for a family of 9 (20 years ago, but that's inflated, most of my kids were gone by then). That's not even being overly cautious about budgeting on my part. Today...I suppose it might cost that much...but today is a far cry from 20 years ago (which is where you rent looks like it is from if you are in Texas unless you are living in slums or out in the boonies). You did make me wonder if my numbers were way off, so I did a quick google which turned up this https://www.rentcafe.com/average-rent-market-trends/us/tx/bexar-county/san-antonio/ Which shows that yes, there ARE apartments under $700, but if you are in the area of San Antonio, you KNOW that's NOT where you want to live. Average is $1051 which includes that cost of everything from a one bedroom in the bad areas of town to the 3 bedroom in the best parts and most expensive parts of town. It's better than Austin $1,385 average, or Dallas $1,250 average...and even Houston $1,106. The cheapest I could find for the area would be near the Military Base (Randolph of all places) which has an average of $900, but knowing that area, the cheapest of the safe areas (and that's only because it's gated, the complex next door is hit regularly with crime) is around $800 for a one bedroom apartment. We all have different experiences...and I must admit, mine is very different from yours. I've seen families which have financial needs for all sorts of a variety of reasons.. A few examples that could be other than what you listed...and I'm not sure why anyone would be so cold as to ignore ones like these... -An older widow whose husband died. She actually lived in one of the trailers that my friend was renting out at the time. We had people go help her with yard work, but she basically had no income that I could tell apart from a very small SS income. She couldn't afford rent. My friend was a Saint...basically let her live there. She lived alone, and was rather feeble in old age as well. - A disabled individual who had a wife and son living with him. He had been hit in a car accident (other vehicle's fault) and if I recall, the other driver didn't have insurance. He was paralyzed from the neck down. The Car insurance ONLY covers so much, as does medical insurance. He was crippled for life. -A family that WAS working for almost the exact amount that you list...$15 dollars an hour. In order to afford a place for their size of a family they actually DID move out of town. The amount taken out for insurance as well as utilities and house payments (they did buy a house, they figured house payments were actually cheaper to pay then rent...which is true in many cases) was basically almost the entire paycheck. For 5 kids they had $150 to pay for food, gas, and anything extra a MONTH. That's it. Remarkably, they did NOT ask for welfare, nor did the kids even get free lunch...and they didn't ask the church either. the church actually had to send people out to THEM and offer to at least have a Bishop's Warehouse food order. They didn't do it themselves because the Husband was working full time. --Another family, dad also making $15 an hour who had 6 kids and counting (I don't know how many they have now, they definitely believed in the principle that the Lord would give children and then would provide). Even at $15 an hour, I don't see them really able to provide for their families with all the necessities. Both examples above actually didn't ask the Church for help, but had to be approached instead. However, it was obvious to many that there was a need to help there. I don't know many people making $50K a year on Government assistance. The closest I know are some Wounded and Disabled Veterans (and who in their RIGHT MIND holds Veteran benefits against Veterans who bled and were wounded for our freedoms!!!??? Sorry, I have to shush about this or I'd go off, but I'm not going to assume that's what you are referring to simply because that's the only ones I know who make more than others on their benefits) who still don't get that much in their Benefits. You'd have to be at least a Wounded 0-3 or O-4 at 100% medical retirement to come close and that's MILITARY RETIREMENT (medically) rather than government assistance. Most of those I knew with Government assistance made less than $20K a year, some as low as ~$5000 a year, many around ~16-18K, and a very few between 20-30K a year...with these being numbers more recent. How in the WORLD did anyone get over 50K in Government assistance (and I'm speaking of assistance, NOT Benefits such as Veteran Benefits, which if you are referring to would probable not make me happy and I should quit the thread, as someone who begrudges veterans normally makes me in a very unchristian attitude...which is a failing of mine and a sin). It's hard to find how much Texas actually pays in Welfare or TANF/SNAP, but I did find this site Snap food benefits And this TANF cash Help That shows the maximum family amount for 1 person under SNAP is $204 a month, and for a family of 3 it is $535, for a family of 4 it is $680, and a family of 6 it is $969 to a maximum of a family of 8 at $1,224 per month with another $153 per extra mouth. TANF shows that with 1 parent in a family of 1 (how that works with children...who knows) is $78. If you have 2 parents at home with two it goes up to $125 a month. The maximum it appears for a family of 5 is $268 a month with $43 per extra person. So, using those two, even with a $1377 per month for a family of 9 with another $397 cash per month for a family of 9. Combined that's ,1744 a month which is 21, 288 a month...which is still a far cry from 50K (and this is current numbers listed on these sites). How big are these families getting 50K in charity and government assistance? That's still a far cry from 50K that I have to go to get there. HOWEVER...I then thought, maybe they get their utilities paid for as well??? Which then showed that Texas Texas Utilities Benefits is quite generous with help with it's utilities. It will pay up to 6 to 8 of the highest utility bills each year. I suppose if you had a family of 9 who used a TON of AC in the summer...and had a large house (which doesn't make sense considering rent costs...but okay...we'll go with it...they have a big house)...they could have a $1000 electricity and water bill each month. So that's another 12K we can add onto that 21,288 bringing us up to 33, 288. Still lower than that 35K you talked about (twenty years ago which the benefits would have been less from Texas at that point). Utilities seem a little high for someone who is saving money on a budget (and in Texas...but then...AC costs can drive electrical up pretty high at times). You could cut electrical costs a LOT..which leaves water costs for the most part...which normally isn't that high. I'm not really involved in the discussion of whether woman working or not should be something we commend at this point, but your numbers in your budget didn't make a ton of sense to me (some seemed a little high, some seemed a little low whether it was 20 years ago, or for today...at least in Texas...it could be you are speaking of someplace else like Iowa or Nebraska or even some parts of Georgia, Louisiana, Alabama...or elsewhere). So...I made some commentary (really lengthy commentary) of my thoughts outloud while I looked up things online to see if I really was out of it, or if something didn't quite seem right with what you posted numbers wise. Also, in the process of that, I found that my experiences of those that need assistance and help don't necessarily fall into the narrow categories you give, but acknowledge we all have different experiences in this. PS: Though not really in the conversation, in reference to the actual topic...my preference is that a wife and a mother would wish to raise her children in the ways of the Lord. We have been advised that this is the exemplar way that we should strive to do things...BUT...I also understand that in many instances this is not possible in today's world with expenses. I also understand that there are many different situations for various families and there are just as many different reasons and causes for women to work outside of the home, even when there are little children there. In today's environment, it can be hard to thread the needle between necessity and otherwise, and the Brethren have done the best they can under the current circumstances to try to address in a very general and broad sense, to women in different situations that the Lord loves them and treasures them as his daughters.

I saw the Church's post and the reactions to it. I find it confirmation that there are many in the chuch that practice idolatry. They worship Trump as their prophet and deity and have the Republican Party as their TRUE religion. There have been two incidents recently that seem to go hand in hand with this. The First was when an apostle of the Lord came out and said he was speaking AS AN APOSTLE and asked (didn't command or demand, but did heavily suggest if we want to be more like the Lord) people to wear masks. The comments that were made towards him and the statement were tantamount to calling him false, that the church was false, and that he was speaking as a man. I may not agree with that, but I can actually see where people were coming from and wouldn't hold that against them. We all have things we may see differently, and though I don't agree on that point, there are also many points they may not agree with me on as well. HOWEVER... The Church then has come out with a congratulations of Biden for being his victory. They have done this congratulations to every president-elect in the past, many times far sooner than they did with Biden. It is NOT an unusual thing, and something that is basically an apolitical item in that they are simply trying to be good neighbors towards the leaders of the world and the elections that are held. The thing that alarms me, and especially when considering the comments made previously that align more towards Trumpism than anything else are the numbers of comments that called the Church fallen, false, and worse. If the Church comes out with a third statement later on that goes against the Trumpist dialogue, and people follow Trump instead of at least withholding their statements against the Church I think that would be three strikes there where we see what their true religion is. The thing is, the Church always has offered congratulations. It's not something unusual or new. This is actually a later letter of congratulations than they have made in the past in some instances. It is no reason for people to freak out or start the type of accusations they have. The fact that they are triggered this easily over something so normal in the way the church has done things in the past is a little (I'm not overly alarmed yet) alarming. I'm not saying it makes me happy (it doesn't make me sad either, it's just a press release and it normally doesn't make me feel any real feelings about it in the past or the present), but I don't see why people are flipping about something so general or typical in the Church's actions. It's like suddenly getting upset because the church is having conference in April. The church traditionally ALWAYS has Conference in April, so why flip out about it when it occurs again? The comments towards the Church over something the Church has always traditionally has done says more about those commenting in this instance (to me) than the Church itself in this instance. I think it would be more of a break in tradition if the Church did NOT offer congratulations. IF, for some reason, the electoral vote is not certified and instead it goes before Congress and Trump gets another term as President, it is possible the church would also congratulate him on his selection at a later date as well. As such, I find it more unsettling the comments that are against the Church in recent posts because it does not align with Trumpism far more than anything the Church itself has done in regards to the current situation/turmoil in the US.

Going off topic to a related side topic... Some of it in regards to Missions. I have been saddened by how many of my grandsons have not served missions. I have learned though that there were at least two of them that wanted to, but due to some sort of quiz or evaluations they have now, they were not allowed to. These sons have traveled the world on their own, but supposedly they are mentally or emotionally not able to because of certain mental difficulties or disabilities that they have. In this, it's not their fault, but I think the church should allow more of those who WANT to serve proselyting missions to be allowed to make the attempt as long as that individual is righteous and worthy (and if it is still a thing, not have committed any major sins previously). I have been blessed to have two grandsons serve missions as well, but one of those had to do a "trial" just to prove that they were able to be a missionary. They passed the trial...but considering the circumstance...I don't think it should have been necessary. I see people who have broken the law of chastity repeatedly going on missions, those who are cruel and inhumane getting to go, but the restrictions on those who have done none of these things but may have disabilities being restricted. Ironically, many of those who have a 'major heart condition' may want to go but are not allowed to being told they might be able to serve a local service mission instead. For these young men, especially in the face of some of those that we've seen go (at least locally in the area) it can be frustrating. On the otherhand, I also have other grandsons that simply chose not to serve. I suppose I may not have been the best influence as I tried to heavily influence them to go. I suppose one may even say I tried to bribe them a little with things such as offers to pay education, vehicles or otherwise which may not quite be in line with what I should have done. Perhaps my trying to convince them that they should go pushed them further away...I don't know. I know I have encouraged them as much as I could, but ultimately, they decided not to go. I don't know why they chose not to, but perhaps it has to do that something happened at their own wards in the way that you mentioned that told them they did not need to go. That this would go on concerns me.

The problem I see isn't with them being able to do what the Constitution should allow them to do (moderate those who are on their private property of the business) but in that they are so large that in some areas they are literally a monopoly, and as a monopoly type organization, can influence and hold power like any other monopoly. The solution to this is to weaken the monopoly. One should not try to destroy the rights of everyone else (most of the companies that benefit from Section 230 are not the Large corporations, they can actually afford a lawsuit or two...but the small groups like this one which probably could be overwhelmed without those same protections). Instead, another method that can weaken their hold should be found. It was mentioned already about others starting their own business, and in a fair economic arena that is normally a good solution. America today has lost a LOT of what is capitalism, and as capitalism is squashed, corporatism or corporate monopoly is one of the things that can take it's place. Right now, here in the West it appears that this has slowly been occurring over the past 2 decades. This means that once they get enough power, a monopolistic corporation can squash any threats it sees to its own self interest. Another solution in the past was that unions were formed. Unions between workers who refused to work under some conditions and could be bargained with did a great deal at making corporations and companies more concerned about workers, better pay and benefits, and a host of other measures that affected how the US middle class rose in power and numbers during the mid 20th century. The Power of Unions and unifying have been greatly weakened over the past 4 decades, and with that, the protections in place. That said, a similar idea could work if everyone could band together to boycott or avoid the social media spots that are troublesome by working together until their demands are met. Unfortunately, as we've seen over the past decade, it seems these types of actions (Target Stores for example is probably stronger now than it was when the boycott took place) do not work anymore against the mega-corps of today. Another idea is that government steps in to try to break them up. One of the last big cases in this light was against Microsoft about 20 years ago. We see that the penalties really didn't have that much of an effect on Microsoft and how it acted. If anything, it's tightened it's grip and control over it's OS and what it can do on people's personal computers (automatic updates under the guise of security updates, requiring authorizations to even use their software and calling it more a rental than ownership, blocking computers that don't comply with their demands, still incorporating a web browser in their OS and attempting to force people to use it, etc...etc...etc). The question is how much we can actually trust our government today to put the well being and needs of it's citizens over that of corporate interests, power, and money (donations, etc). It can actually be quite complex, but we have to be careful that in trying to dismantle the monopolistic powers some groups (youtube, facebook, twitter, etc) are exercising that we don't actually hurt the smaller companies and groups as well and thus instead of weakening the monopolies we intend to, we actually make them stronger in the long run.

Section 230 is actually a very important item today in regards to free speech. Without it, forums such as this, may not exist. Without such a protection sites would have a choice to either be simply a transfer hub of information with zero moderation (unlikely most would do this, as it loses focus) or only allow content that they, themselves, post. In the former most business, even non-profits and charities, would see no real benefit. It would be like hosting a server. In the latter, there is no freedom from anyone to be able to say anything. The problem that many have with the sites currently is not that they cannot be pursued legally (unless one is upset at their moderating, but that happens constantly. I'm sure this site has it's fair share of moderation occasionally as well) but more in regards to the moderation sections... However, this is also in line with other restrictions on the freedom of the site, such as following ensuing laws regarding infringement, privacy or criminal material. I actually think section 230 (though at the time many felt it may limit free speech) in it's interpretation today has preserved a LOT of the free speech we have on the internet...while at the same time allowing various private sites to have the freedom to let people post (though, as pursuant to 2 A and B) without the fear of being sued as the publisher of the same information, but instead relaying it back to those who posted. The instance where someone posts something that another thinks is slander, abuse, or attack which is not taken down (in my opinion) should not be reflected necessarily upon that site, but legal means should be pursued against the offender who posted such material, rather than the site that allows the speech of others on it. Instead of holding others personally responsible in these instances, people want to try to silence the sites instead... To silence such sites, even with the moderation they have, I think would do a great disservice to free speech on the internet today if one did it through such a repeal of the protections of Section 230 of the CDA or specifically (Title 47 Ch 5 Subchapter 2 part I section 230). In my opinion of course. PS: Ah, and for the relevant pursuing information on the actual item in question... 47-230 on cornell's law website

Once again, there is a DIFFERENCE between breaking the law on purpose vs. breaking it by accident/ignorance. However, in answer to your questions...no, I have no jaywalked, nor ran a red light at 3 am (suspiciously specific there...but in general, no, I have not run red lights, and especially not on purpose), nor do I lose my receipts. Not sure where the law about having to do everything your family asks you to do is on the books, you'll have to give me that one. I'm not about to break mask mandates or self isolation just because a family member asks...for example. You are taking offense when there should be none. I'm not sure why you are taking offense. How can I say this...no...I don't actively break the law on purpose. It's not something I really want to do or desire to do and I know plenty of others like me. Is this concept a foreign concept in the part of Utah where you live? People obeying the laws, even minor ones, is NOT something that is all that strange, at least in my experience. IT's not a virtue signalling or anything else. It's how things are. It's rather odd to have someone assume everyone breaks the laws on purpose. It is interesting that you bring up following the Spirit but not the letter of the Law. What does that actually mean? I think it means something different in your culture than the ones I've normally am familiar with. The reason I ask about breaking commandments and such actually ties into that statement in other cultures sometimes. I other cultures (not necessarily yours) when people are willing to make minor infractions against the laws of their land, they also are willing to bend laws and rules in their religion or organizations. This is not necessarily a bad thing or good thing. I don't think you understand it's not necessarily saying you are bad when I ask that question at all, as you seem to have taken it in a bad way. It could be a good thing in some instances, which is something I don't think you understand. Thus, it is merely a query to understand how this all works. An example which one could say was good or bad. In Saudi Arabia there are laws tied to the dominant religion there, however they are not necessarily reflective of that religion. There is a movement there to give women more rights. On occasion, these women would attempt to drive themselves or go out on their own to certain locations which are in direct violation of the law. When one sees this as an American, it does not seem that big of a deal. These same women though, in doing so may also be breaking some of the religious traditions that they are supposed to follow. They may be defying their husbands and many of them do not follow the strict dress codes dictated to them in their religious sect. The same spirit that inspires them to defy the laws of their land also gives them a critical eye in how much they feel they want to follow the laws of their religion. In their eyes, some of them will say they are following the spirit of the law of Islam, even if they are not following the letter of the Law. Many see them as being wrong in Saudi Arabia, but others in the West see them as being right. Perspective can say it is good or bad. Due to their actions it is thought that their influence has finally allowed woman to at least be able to drive a vehicle. Many feel their actions and influence have allowed woman to slowly gain more rights in Saudi Arabia. At the same time, some of them are having very harsh penalties and punishments laid upon them. Do you see them as heroes? Villains? Neither? I suppose it depends on your point of view. However, to someone who does not understand the motivations of the culture, all of it can be confusing. This is a common theme that you can see in other cultures as well, where if one is willing to bend the law of the land, they are also willing to bend the rules of their culture (whether it be religious rules, social rules, or otherwise). The thought then is that if one is willing to purposely break the law of their land, they will also be willing to do it in other matters. This is NOT an uncommon theme you see in the study of cultures and events in history. At times it's led to massive changes that we see (for example, many would be surprised at some of the ways the Revolutionary Leaders of the US Revolutionary War actually felt about religion and religious rules, which in some ways can also be seen as a reflection on their take on British Law upon the colonies). This is where I currently stand in the approach you have discussed about Utah Culture in this aspect. I don't understand your culture or where you are coming from, so I am asking questions that traditionally follow from one point to another in other cultures. In follow through, I know in Utah they recently approved Marijuana Use. This was expressly against the wishes of the leadership of the Church. If we take that Utah has a massive influence from members of the Church, the implication is that the members broke with the Brethren on this issue. That would seem to back up to me that there COULD BE (not that there is) a correlation between those who are willing to break what they perceive as minor laws in Utah with those that are also willing to break what they see as minor things from their Church leaders (for example, I'd imagine the excuse they gave themselves when voting to legalize marijuana was that the General Authorities were speaking as men on the issue, or that the Church had no place in politics...etc..etc...etc). I see a lot of things like this occurring in Utah which at times puzzle those who are not in Utah (BYU starting to offer caffeinated drinks for example, they did not sell those drinks due to revelation from a prophet for them not to and did not sell them for many years as one example) which to me would make sense if members there apply the same logic to certain rules or ideas in the Church that they do to the laws of the land that they see as minor infractions (such as speeding for example). If I understand what you have said correctly though, this is not why you do things. You speed because you feel it is following the Spirit of the Law rather than the Letter, the spirit of the law indicating that the reason the law exist is to ensure that you drive safely. If we extend this to most of the people in your area, would this also indicate that they feel they know better than the police or those that enforce the laws, or that they know better then the safety regulators who make these laws? If so, why do they not just vote to change the laws? Something I HAVE noticed in my visits to Utah is that the speed limit has risen over the years, and yet, even as it rises, people adjust so that they drive even faster. Back when it was 65 people drove 70-80 mph. Now that it is 70-75 (80 in some areas I believe) they still drive 5-15 mph over the speed limit. In theory it adjusted to their driving patterns and what they desired...but looking at their behavior it appears it had nothing to do with wanting to drive that speed and instead something else. What that something else is though, I do not quite understand. Perhaps you can explain. Do you feel that the faster you drive the safer you are on the road? Obviously the speed limits are still not what the people of Utah desire...so what speed do you feel should be the speed limit and why is it inherently better than what was there before? PS: And it could work both ways. There are times that my statements do not match eye to eye with what some would interpret as the ongoing ideas of some of the church leadership (especially the more conservative leadership). Thus, the idea that I might not see eye to eye with local leadership on secular laws may also be an assumption one may make in that arena, all things being equal.

One reference (it does not say this, but it is a reference that some take to imply that what we look like now, our spirits could at least take the form of it in the pre-existence) is in Ether 3

Wait until you find out what Australians have given us... You might long for the Boring Canadians then...

I actually agree with the idea about Internet companies and even to a lesser degree, medical providers.