JohnsonJones

You've noticed...eh? It's been going on for a while, and while some of it is not that disturbing and could be encouraging (liberal in and of itself is not a BAD thing, our religion is not Conservative OR Liberal, it does NOT worship our political beliefs and we should not mistake political opinions or parties as our religion. Too many worship at the altar of the false idol of politics, putting forth their politics as their religion rather than having the Lord as first and foremost) there are other items which have been disturbing me for a while which are in direct conflict with what was taught and given by the Prophets and Church leaders through the centuries up until now. Some liberal ideas are reflected in the Bible and so are not terrible in and of themselves. We are to render unto Caesar what is Caesar and unto the Lord what is the Lord's for example, to be in the world but not conformed of it (Romans 12). This can be where we allow people the freedom to be who they want to be without persecution. The idea of loving your neighbor, or loving the person but not the sin I can see reflected in encouraging those who are in sin to come to our church (And hopefully repent, but that is their free agency) but still not approving of the sin. On the otherhand, there have been a great number of ideas that have been brought into the Church in the past decade. Some of it is the confusion brought on by those who have created church manuals themselves. You talk about their criticism of Spencer W. Kimball, but there is a trend to do so now that was encouraged by the Church essays and such. In it they cast down a few items taught as doctrine in the past (and even declared as such) and instead imply that the leaders of the time were speaking their opinions and that we do not know why they taught such opinions or actions that they took. This cast doubt on the prophets and their prophetic mission as obviously those at that time did not think these General Authorities were speaking only as men on these topics. This opens up the gambit where we have no idea when a Prophet is a prophet and when he is a man (Brigham Young on the other hand clarified it somewhat, but today there are items that he said as a prophet that we say he said as a man, and the same for Joseph Smith). It is very easy now for Saints to take these ideas and apply it to whatever they want in regards to prophets...including statements by Spencer W. Kimball (and ironically, to some of the ideas in the Bible itself, at least if you accept Paul as a prophet). However, these changes that go contrary to how the gospel was taught extend to many other facets of the church, and many are directly contrasting to that taught previously. Sometimes it is just in direct contradiction to things taught in our modern era but other times, they are in direct contradiction to EVERYTHING written and taught in the Church from the Beginning of the Bible, reinforced in the Book of Mormon and by our Modern prophets, and more. Some of the more disturbing in my thoughts again, is that I see it extended even into the temple and how things are done there (without going into it any more than that). I see it as driving a wedge into the Church in many ways, and this approach has shown a reduction of Baptisms, retention and many other things reflected in the Church itself...at least to my view. So...what is a member to do? What do I do? I remember that I received a testimony of the Gospel and the Book of Mormon. I remember that I have gotten a testimony of the divine calling of the Prophets and the Apostles. This testimony is MORE than just some emotional feeling that I had, or some emotion that is can be felt otherwise. It is a distinct and explicit testimony where I have heard the Holy Ghost testifying that the gospel is true. Because of this I KNOW that the Book of Mormon is the word of God and that the Gospel is true. No matter what else, I KNOW the truths given to me. It does not matter what the changes are to the Church for now. As Elder Uchtdorf has said in summary..."Where will you go?" There IS no other place to go. You stay in the boat because it is the ONLY vessel which was designated as the vessel of the Lord, at least until the Lord comes back. We do the best we can, even with what is happening around us. As you are probably not (you may be, but most of the members are not) the Prophet or the First Presidency, there is very little you can do or any of us. Instead, we follow the Prophet and if there are things that are done that lead people away or are not in accordance with what the Lord desires, it will not be held upon our heads (unless in direct contradiction to the commandments and we are directly told by the Lord not to, which has not occurred to me as of yet) but those who have caused the sins to occur due to their responsibility and power. As such, we stay in the boat (in the church) and cling as hard as we can to what we know is true. The gospel is true, and we know that in it we can find a safe haven for when the Lord comes (and he will be coming and is coming). I see a LOT of changes (or what you may call Liberal Ideas) that have crept into the Church in recent years. In fact, if you had me look at the Church today from when I joined decades ago and many of the things that it is teaching or promoting in regards to Church doctrines and to a lesser degree it's history, I may have thought it was an offshoot of the Church rather than the main Church. However, there is ONLY one church that still brings and delivers the gospel as found in the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. We can either hold to it and stay in, or give up. I don't plan on giving up any time soon. If nothing else, when I have problems or difficulties, I lean back on the testimony I have received so long ago which I cannot deny, and grab onto it in realization that despite any doubts I may have, I still have a testimony that I cannot deny and that holds me to the Church.

I am grateful for mechanical vehicles that transport us various places in this world. I am grateful for automobiles which allow me to get to work and live where I want (Well, within reason withing car travel of work) and allow our Church wards to be rather spread out (without cars there are many that could have a tough time getting to church each Sunday...when Church is meetings of course) as well as visiting ward members. I am grateful for trucking and rails which bring food and supplies to stores. I'm grateful for Airplanes which also are used for transport but also transport people. In better years cars also bring kids and grandkids for visits as well as Airplanes. I'm grateful for the ability we have to live where we want and still be able to go visit family in a rather quick time frame, something that we are blessed so much with today that those of centuries past did not have.

Someone's playing a joke perhaps...

Though I see what you are saying (and the literal translation is contested between the traditional, not just in Genesis 1:1, but in many places throughout the Bible) I think there are several factors to consider before tossing the traditional translations or understanding. We do not have the original documents of the Old Testament, and the context in which they were understood may not be as easily understood from a modern mind as it was from those who looked at documents older than what we have today and either transcribed or translated them. The Greek indicates that the traditional form could reflect the way it was understood even by Hebrews in the 4th century (which does not necessarily mean it is how it was understood originally, but is something that is closer to the times than we are, though it could also be argued that due to lack of modern measures they could have also had a more flawed understanding as well). This holds true for many other portions of the Bible which have turned more into questions today. Something that I wonder about at times is that at times the expressions used in regards to deity are the plural forms, rather than the singular that are reflected in other translations, but we default to the singular expression in our readings and translations in English in almost all those instances. If we contest Genesis 1:1 in it's modern traditional translation, how far do we go in contesting many of the other traditional understandings regarding the translations of the Bible today, both in English and other languages? I can think of many reasons why translations continue as they are or in an incorrect manner. The Bible has many parts that when modern scholars look at it today, do not necessarily expressly mean what or how it has been rendered in English or other languages. Genesis 1:1 is a decent example (as @maklelan has pointed out). A down and dirty look by me, in a brief glance (which probably could be contested deeply in it's relation by scholars, so this is not actually a scholarly look, just giving it out as an example of what is meant for the matter of relating to this discussion and my points below). Bereshit bara Elohim et hashamayim ve'et ha'aretz. Beginning created (masculine in regards to create and as follows, normally seen as he) gods/deities the everything/universe/sky and the earth. This could be understood in different ways than how we read it. For example, though we translate it in the singular, it actually could mean a council of Deities, or a group of them, and it does not necessarily mean in the Beginning, it could mean at the beginning, or a beginning. Even what is written with the cheap translation there is not actually purely accurate for a translation as it misses context, a more in depth understanding of the words and how they are presented, and various other measures. The Deities are the ones enacting the creating, though with a literal English placement it is in the middle of the sentence, and even with that brief and cheap translation, you can see my Biases already regarding what understandings we should have of the words and placement, meaning that a more literal translation would probably not even take the liberties I have which reflect a more traditional understanding of them. That said, THIS is one reason why I appreciate the Book of Mormon and other translations and revelations of Joseph Smith so much. The Bible that we read is reliant upon many traditions and ideas passed down from age to age. We normally do not have the original texts of many of these Books or even those that are reliably copied from the originals and even when we do, at times the way we translate it can be flavored by the biases of the ones doing the translations and reliant upon how well they may or may not understand the original context that was going through those who wrote it down originally. It could be that there have been misunderstandings and changes to these books of the Bible throughout the years (and indeed, we used to be taught in the Church that there were actually some times where doctrines and ideas were intentionally changed to mislead the children of men in the Bible's current forms). Thus, the Bible could be seen as useful, but not necessarily absolutely reliable in the doctrines it taught or gave us. With the Book of Mormon we have the direct translation to Joseph IN ENGLISH. Because of this, it is the original translation, and as it was inspired and revealed by the Power of God, we KNOW that it is probably the most accurate translation of scripture ever done. THIS is why it is the most correct book and the one that is probably the truest in regards to the message of the Lord. In addition, Joseph received direct revelations on the gospel and the church which we find in the Doctrine and Covenants. This does NOT need a translation from any other language as Joseph was the one who received most of these (with a few from others) directly, and it was overseen by him when transcribed by others into scripture. There have been a few changes later, but currently it is probably the most accurate of all scriptures when read in English. Finally, we have Joseph's Translations and revelations which are found in the Pearl of Great Price, which once again, as with the Book of Mormon, are directly led by the Holy Spirit and the Lord in the process of revelation. These books of Scripture are for us and help to clarify the misunderstood (or even worse, changed) words or ideas that we find in the Bible (at least in my belief and faith). In this way, I'd probably ALSO favor an understanding of Nephi's relation of Isaiah similarly to the ideas you have presented, though I understand how that could be problematic from several other points of view (as have also been presented in this thread). It also is enlightening to see the translations of the Pearl of Great Price in relation to that given in Genesis, as I feel the form Joseph translated and revealed are a much more pure idea to our English understanding of the creation than what we have in Genesis...for example.

I'm grateful for the wonderful electronics that we have today when utilized for good. It helps us to be able to watch conference as it occurs (it wasn't always this way, there was a time in my lifetime where I can recall that you could listen to it on the radio in some areas, but if you were unable to do that, you had to order the recordings and listened to conference at a later date after you received those recordings. There are actually areas of the world that this still occurs, but in most of the US and Europe as well as Australia, Japan, and Korea we can watch it live). It helps us so that we can do genealogy in ways we've never expected could be done. It helps with Temple work, church organization and finances, records, and even presentations at times. In addition, I feel it also helps in places like this forum, as well as even more personally with being able to have the Standard Works, the Church Magazines and Church materials instantly (or very quickly at least) in our hands via tablets and phones. I am grateful for how this has changed my life in the accessibility of the gospel and making the gospel and it's works easier to access.

Saturday and Sunday I got sad news. It is expected I suppose to a degree, but it hits somewhat close to home. Two friends of mine have passed away this week from COVID-19 (or that is what I was told). One was someone I got to know through my daughter as she had a close friend when she was younger and I got to know that friends parents. Both parents came down with Covid but while one made it through, the other did not. The other one was also somewhat unexpected. I am part of a club where we dress up as Cowboys sometimes, and do cowboy things such as riding horses and doing rope tricks and rodeo tricks as well as other such things. These days we didn't do as much (age gets you a little slower at times) but we still did parades and fairs at times. One of them passed away this week as well. You may wonder what this has to do with thanks, but it has brought to me a stark realization of a blessing that I've had thus far. I've been around students and others who have had diseases (not just Covid, students have all sorts of illnesses and ailments. Strep can be a particularly lethal one if untreated, they also have flus, colds, etc.) which probably are not the best things that I am exposed to. I have been blessed with protection in many ways from being as affected by some of these as others. I am VERY grateful for the protection I have been blessed with thus far. I do not know how long it might continue, but I have been blessed tremendously in the past few months. I am grateful for that protection from ailments and sickness as well as with being healthy. There have been times when I may not have the best health, but I am still alive and am still breathing and exercising. I AM sorry for losing friends, but I am grateful for the time i have to spend with my family and those I love on this earth for at least a little bit longer and the protection and health that I have been blessed with.

More things I'm grateful for is my wonderful and beautiful wife and the wonderful family we have had together.

I'm grateful for the ability to have shelter over my head, to have food to eat, and to have heating and air conditioning. I'm also grateful for the Atonement and the gospel.

For the uninformed such as I, is one able to go and get an antibody test at most grocery stores? I wasn't aware of this. Would a Kroger's (Smith's in the West) pharmacy be able to do this. I have been around Covid-19 individuals within the past 2 months, and though I tested negative when they tested me and never had any symptoms, a few weeks later we had one individual in our house and family that lost their sense of smell (we isolated them and seem to have come out unscathed) which has me wondering constantly at the back of my mind if I actually could have had it or not and not known about it. I know people my age are supposed to have it hit them much harder than anyone else, but I still wonder if somehow I got it but didn't know it.

If we take exaggerations to this degree, should we not also include the idea that many Trumpers (who claim to be Republicans, not that they necessarily fit the mold, but at least claim to be) literally believes anyone who doesn't want to murder the elderly for sake of convenience are out of line and should be forcibly silenced and not allowed to control what happens on their own private (stores which require shirt, shoes, and a mask actually do NOT fall under the realm of government public property) property on pain of depriving them of their liberty? It can work both ways when tossing around wild claims... Edit: And to be clear, I do not believe EITHER of the claims above are actually accurate or the truth. BOTH extremes of both sides like to toss around these arguments though, rather than trying to actually answer the problems the other side has with their issues. For example, those who are pro-abortion have various issues, one being the ability for medical professionals to make decisions that can help a woman's health. Normally the conservatives focus more on those who choose elective abortion as a type of Birth control, but that does not describe all those who are for allowing abortions. Many actually take a stance closer to what the Church has as it's stance (in cases of rape, abortion, or incest, or where the mother's life may be in danger) and think that the Republican party is against abortion in any instance (not true and a misunderstanding on their part, but many Republicans never actually explain this to Democrats and others who hold the stance above regarding medical issues). On the otherside of the coin, the example of those who do not wish to wear a mask also have concerns that this is the first step in a top down dictation where governors and the government become more tyrannical and use this ability to dictate that people must wear masks without congressional oversight or approval to enact more strict and other laws. It starts off small in requiring people to wear something under the claims of safety, but what starts off small can pave the way for bigger and more aggressive things like ruling when and where people can gather or meet (already happening under guidelines in many areas) and then jumping off of that to infringe on Constitutional freedoms such as the right to bear arms or the freedom to practice their religion or other such things. They have this fear and concern, but it's not something that Democrats are really addressing either except to mock them for not wearing masks. Both sides have concerns, but neither side really wants to address the concerns, instead trying to make all of them out to be like the far extremists of the parties, rather than seeing there are MANY that have valid concerns and are not as extreme as they are being portrayed. It would be a shame to see you go. I DO believe their was voter fraud in Georgia (especially perhaps Gwinnett county, as that's a Trump stronghold in the state, less than 25% African American, and perhaps one of the biggest region for Trump supporters...so...seeing they said it went blue. It just...something seems very off to me...which is why someone like me might start to listen to the claims of fraud or at a minimum, Republican voter disenfranchisement, going on. note: this isn't the first time it went blue, but the last elections are something that are making people wonder as well. It would have to be in the machine though, as to vote you need a state ID in Gwinnett). However, I am NOT a Republican (nor am I democrat for that matter), nor did I support Trump or vote for him. It is good to hear voices from many different angles and I think it sad whenever anyone decides to leave the forums as it diminishes us all.

There actually is. I've posted it before, but ANYONE who is a citizen, in every state that I know of currently allows people to go and get a State Picture ID. Normally one can get a drivers license which also works, but for those who cannot get a drivers license they also can get a Picture ID issued from the State. This also has an ID number in all the states I know of (though it could be a state may not have that id number...unsure on ALL the states) which also can be used to identify someone if they need it. This is why I think we should do away with Voter registration and go off the ID records. ANYONE can get it at the spot Driver's licenses are given out normally, though normally most go for a Drivers license. I have known several who got a State Picture ID instead (most were under the age of 18, but I've also known older folks who could no longer drive to get one as well as a few adults who never got their drivers license, my grand daughter was one of them for a while...though I'm not sure if she has ever gotten her driver's license yet. Last time I checked which was over a year ago was that at the age of 22 she still had not gotten one, but she had a State Picture ID). Correlate the State ID records and that is your license to vote as well right there. You can show up the day of, no need to register before hand or anything like that.

I'm not sure an apostle (or other General Authority) would want to make it known that they were posting on any forums or who they were. It would seem that there would be more problems present than not. It COULD be that they post anonymously though...though to be truly anonymous they'd probably have to get some help from Tech or others from the church office building to help them be able to verify or appear as someone other than a General Authority. If anyone would know if a GA posts here it probably would be @Just_A_Guy or one of the other admins or moderators. Even then, with the right tech going on, they might not know anymore than the rest of us. (or, who knows, maybe there is a GA that is a moderator or admin assigned here, but we don't know who they are or their identity!) In either case, I think it's probably best if we act as I think @NeuroTypical says and treat everyone as if they are a special and unique individual and love them all as we would love a General Authority or Apostle if they were here. I would not be surprised if a General Authority of some sort at least occasionally checks up on various forums (if for nothing else but to see what is currently going on with members in the cyber world as well as other trends), but it may be that they are too busy to do so as well. I think that everyone deserves respect though, and that if we treat people how we probably should (and I probably have been at fault of not being polite or nice enough at times, so bogey on me), we would treat them politely and nicely as well, if they ever visit or read the forums here.

SOOO...if I understand this, he isn't against voting in person, but against some of the companies that are creating and running the software (or even the hardware) on the machines themselves... Which...makes sense. Hearsay on my part, as I am not that computer literate, but I do have a child that has degrees in computer science, according to what I understand them to have told me is that the voting machines are hilariously insecure. That it wouldn't take much from anyone to hack them, and that the US needs better Cybersecurity over it's elections...not that Trump has done anything (that I've heard of) to make them more secure. PS: This kid, currently, I think is pretty far right though, so one could take that into consideration. Something else to consider, people think this is merely the Republicans wondering about this. I AM NOT a Republican (and didn't even support Trump, as many here should also know) though admittedly as an independent I DO lean conservative (compared to the rest of the US, but in these forums it actually probably seems far left and liberal) but I think some of the things being tossed up are valid concerns. Biden just won Georgia, which I'm not that displeased about, but at the same time...alarmed about. I feel that there is voting tampering going on in Georgia despite their best efforts to prevent it...Georgia being blue is laughable. Of course, it could be enough Georgians felt similar to others (such as I) who did not really like Trump as President, so I could accept that perhaps that the state went for Biden, but the Senate races being as close as they are...I'm still not buying it...at all. Personal Bias forming an opinion on my part...probably...but it just does not smell right (in relation to the smell test). Something just does not seem right, especially with how BOTH races in question came under contest...one of those districts...MAYBE...but in the other one...there's one there is NO WAY that happened unless something strange (such as tampering with votes or illegal votes) occurred...in my bias (of course) right now.

I haven't heard the one about him claiming in person voting was rigged. I've heard his claims about mail in ballots, but I think he pushed having in person voting.

Politics have played a heavy hand before in admission for states, though most intensely before the Civil War. The questions of whether they will vote for one party or the other or sway the balance of power has been a highly contested item in the halls of Congress. This has led to many compromises and agreements in order for states to be allowed into the Union. That this is not happening or even being considered today could be seen as a statement regarding how united or divided we are, even in relation to those times in the past prior to the Civil war and it's divisions. We are so divided that we cannot even agree to the degree that they agreed upon when they were divided on issues prior to the Civil War!? This does not speak well of our current political situation. The problem concerning much of this right now is that many are not wanting to compromise anymore, it's more of a my way or the highway approach. Americans are more divided today than in many times in the past, and probably far more than any time in the past 50 years, and unfortunately that shows in how our government is working as well.

It's the Californians (and Eastern Washington and Oregon) that want independence though. Right NOW (and this could actually change, one reason the areas are conservative or Republican are because the people in control of California, Oregon, and Washington currently are Democrats) for the most part these areas ARE Conservative and lean Republican. The Rural areas have NO SAY in what happens to their areas on a State level currently. They are outvoted in their congresses and thus it is a variation on the idea of taxation without representation. Sure, they have representation, but due to how the legislatures are voted and the numbers, their areas are outvoted every single time. They want more water for their agriculture and themselves...too bad...San Franciso and Los Angeles need it more according to the state dictates. Even though the water is Rural, and in their lands, the cities get it instead and deplete it against the wishes of the rest of the state. They want to be off the grid of California and establish their own electrical company and systems because the one the States have are causing too many wildfires in their opinion...too bad...they must do what the State dictates. They want to have more control over what type of fuel and emissions their tractors have so they can have better profits...too bad...they must follow the emission standard set by the cities. They want control over how much they are taxed...too bad...they must pay taxes in regards to those set by the state with the wages made in cities in mind. And it goes on and on. Our forefathers rebelled in the revolution for less than what those in the Eastern portions of California, Oregon, and Washington have imposed upon them from their Urban centers of their states. Texas thus far hasn't had this type of controversy among their voters and residents from what I've seen, thus isn't a hot topic or issue.

Part of the problem and WHY there is resistance to places like Puerto Rico becoming a State is that there is NO benefit to Conservatives in this bargain or deal currently. Many Liberals actually don't care about Puerto Rico, only the political aspects of getting several more electoral votes and Senate Representatives to turn the tide in the Senate (in fact, that is the hot topic currently in regards to making Puerto Rico a State, getting more electoral votes and Senate seats). There HAS to be benefits to BOTH sides. With the current talking points that the more liberal (it's not even the entire Democrat party, it's more the far left side of the party) Democrats are pushing regarding making Puerto Rico and other territories states, they have NO incentives for Conservatives to even consider the possibility. It's a one sided issue. Unless we LOVE the politics that Trump had, where one sided issues are pushed through (this actually was ALSO a problem under Obama and one reason why the ACA has had such a tumultous time, you NEED both parties if you want legislation to be supported in the long term and more support from ALL Americans, rather than just a subset of Americans which hate all the others and vice-versa), you NEED bipartisan legislature, which means something is for BOTH sides (Democrat and Republican). Right now the effort is being pushed by ONE side, and not even the entire side, it's only the very LIBERAL side (despite what some Conservatives push, the Democrats do have various political aspects of their party with some being more liberal than others. Biden is actually pretty conservative in regards to the Democrat party, he is more of a moderate than others such as AOC). Most of the arguments I've seen are NOT considering how it may best help Puerto Rico (for example, allowing Puerto Rico in as a state to allow it more access to funds to help repair it's infrastructure which has been in tatters for a few years due to natural disasters, and various other aspects), but more from a political slant of getting more seats and political clout. That's NOT how you win over the opposition among Republicans OR among independents. They need to present a picture where there is FAR more benefit to the country (meaning anyone besides just Liberal Democrats, which would mean a benefit to Republicans, Independents, and even Puerto Rico itself with it's infrastructure, economy, and various other items). It needs a vote of approval from it's current state government. With politics, and compromise, a state government might be able to get in line with it (or they could do a Virginia act, though that would require the areas which wish to secede from their states to create a new government and in doing so argue that the California government is invalid...a VERY controversial act even today on how legal constitutionally it was...and that was during a time when the actual Virginia had declared secession itself) in regards to a plausible housing arrangement (Democrats as a whole gain more seats in the house, and a partial percentage in the Senate as new seats arise from PR and the new Western State), which benefits the party as a whole, even if the politicians in California suffer. The BIGGEST problem I see is that the Cities KNOW they depend on the rural areas for water in California, or for other resources in Washington and Oregon and are unwilling to try for a situation where they actually have to cooperate. Currently, the big problems in those areas is that they go for majority elections (rather than representational like the Federal level of elections go) with the states, which makes for the tyranny of the majority. It's probably the entire reason many of the Rural areas are very unhappy with the current status quo. The Cities get all the say and the Rural areas basically have to do whatever they are told with no input. It's a variation of the taxation without representation which caused unrest many centuries ago at the beginning of the Nation itself. You are right, the State Governments with NO incentives currently will NEVER let the independence movements of those states go, but if we incorporate national politics into it and try to come up with a Missouri Compromise situation with their cooperation, where they have something that is the bait or motivator (and what that is, I don't know currently), they might go along with it. Without a major push when the Democrats own both parts of Congress and the Executive branch, and then force the issue without any bipartisan support, I don't see Puerto Rico becoming a State simply because it's a one sided issue at this point. There is no benefit to anyone (and perhaps not even Puerto Ricans from how the plan is being pushed by the Far Left) to make Puerto Rico a state at this point (much less DC which brings in constitutional issues far more than breaking up California) except for some Democrats at this point, and unless that changes...there will be a massive resistance to statehood for anyone else.

Why haven't we granted the Northern and Eastern Californians their state? They want it, but keep getting over voted by those in San Francisco and Los Angeles. There are more people clamoring to be free from California into their own states than Puerto Rico by several times. Why do we not allow those in Eastern Washington and Oregon to form their own states. The folks who are not in the urban centers are in a similar situation (and have been forming different scenarios for decades now, even where they try to combine themselves into a single state rather than separate ones just so they can govern themselves). Why don't we allow them to have their own state? If that's what the people of Northern California, Eastern California, Eastern Oregon and Eastern Washington want...why shouldn't they be allowed to become a state? Their citizens serve in the US Military and are loyal (and in some cases, probably MORE loyal than some in the parts they want to separate from) to the United States. So why shouldn't it be? PS: Perhaps, it should be time for another great compromise between the Conservatives and Liberal sections of government...oh wait...no one wants to negotiate or compromise between the Democrats and the Republicans these days...perhaps that's the REAL reason nothing is going to happen unless one group tries to bulldoze it through, and then another bulldozes their agendas through. If Puerto Rico becomes a State, let California become three separate states like what was proposed a few years ago, or let Eastern Washington and Eastern Oregon become their own states to balance it all out.

I have been told that the Adversary and his fallen angels have an overriding hatred of all the creations of our Father (which also includes us). There only goal left is to destroy everything the Father is and has created. Hatred is a terrible thing, but it drives revenge, vengeance, anger, and the desire to destroy. It can crowd out all other aspects or emotions if one rages with hate. It is the opposite of love, and the opposite of hope. Pure evil thus is probably filled with hatred and rage, and when it is that filled with it to the complete opposite of how much our Father and our Elder Brother loves us, it is probably impossible for us to comprehend how such a being thinks. That they would self annihilate might seem to be an actual reward to one in such a state, if only to escape their suffering, and if they take down what they hate with them, that could be their ultimate goal...which is a terrible thing to think about. However, we have books and novels that explain such hatred in men (Moby Dick for example and others) and it's self destructive tendencies where men do not care about themselves, only destroying that which they hate.

But what did she UNDERSTAND the purpose of it to be? Are you certain she understood it as you think she did? From your description, it sounds as if she did not understand it to be the same as you did. If the instructions were to go to Canada, and you instead didn't get to Canada, but took a bunch of smaller side trips that you could easily and independently describe in short order as you understood the purpose was to get to understand each other (and not necessarily get to Canada, as that was just the mcguffin to inspire the conversation), she still might be wondering why you didn't get to Canada. You may have even told her that you were not going to travel there but have short trips that were distinct and easy to travel instead, but if her understanding was that the end goal was Canada and you never got there....without her able to tell you this, it would be a misunderstanding of the purpose and end results or at least the expectations of the exercise between you two. You both had different ideas and expectations of what the exercise and goals were. PS: At least that would be my guess from your descriptions. If you both understood each other and understood it to have the same expectations of the exercise and goals, than I would think she would not have had the difficulties described. As she seems to have been, it wasn't a problem understanding what you wanted her to draw or do, but a confusion between what she understood the goal and purpose of the exercise vs. what she thought you did in relation to it and her relative expectations. AS I was not there, it is obviously guesswork on my part...

Part of the problem some are having with the Electoral college is how many more votes per person some states get compared to others. Part of the problem with this is that we capped the number of states and the number of representatives. Many think that we should go to a majority vote, but this merely disrupts the republic and hands power to a few cities in the United States. Like what has happened in some Western Democrat controlled states, the rural areas are then controlled and are completely at the mercy of the urban cities with absolutely no say in their governance. This is democracy, but it is not letting everyone actually be represented. It is the tyranny of the majority, something that the Constitution was made prevent. If they want better representation they should allow more Representatives. They need to change what is written by amendment and allow one Representative per number of population again. HOWEVER...in that same light, they ALSO need to start allowing more states. Perhaps if an area has 2 million citizens, they will be allowed to create their own states. This means that Los Angeles and San Francisco could be their own states, but so could Northern, Central, and Southern, as well as Western and several other sections of California could be their own states thus ALSO increasing the number of Senators and representatives they have for them. This would work in giving more Conservative areas a greater say (and probably making the Senate lean HEAVILY Republican, while the House leaned HEAVILY Democrat) and stop the tyranny of the majority in states where the rural areas no longer have a say in what goes on there. So, it does not need to just be Puerto Rico, DC, and Guam, but a LOT more areas that want their independence as a State, but have thus far been denied due to political aspects (for example, Urban California does NOT want to let go of the agricultural areas of California, even though the rural areas desperately want to be able to govern themselves and be free from the dictates of the urban majority).

Let me see if I can explain it in another way. I tell you that we are going to take a trip to Canada. I'll pick you up and we will then start in Texas and end up in Ottawa. I then pick you up and say, hey, this is going to be a little different. We are going to spend time together and get to know each other better. There is no real distinct plan here, we'll take it in chunks, with the first chunk being a leg from your house to Oklahoma City via the Highway in the most direct route. After we get to Oklahoma City, I then tell you that we are going to travel to Topeka Kansas. Then, I tell you we are going to travel to Denver Colorado. Then we turn and travel to Phoenix Arizona and then to El Paso Texas. When we get back to your house after a few weeks of travel you ask me about Canada. I thought we were going to Canada? I told you when I picked you up that there is no real distinct plan here...what part of it did you not understand. The difficulty that occurred was because the opening premise stated we would be taking a trip to Canada. Even though I told you I was not actually having any plan to do so when I picked you up after that, the initial assumption was still there. In these sorts of classes, the initial assumption is that there is an overall big picture or idea that you are conveying...not a bunch of smaller distinct and separate ideas. Thus, her expecting that you would eventually go along with the overriding plan, just like one would expect me to follow the initial statement I had made about going to Canada, is still there. This would be exacerbated even more if this was for a business. The business instruction was that we were to get to try to understand and know each other better while taking a trip to Canada. When I picked you up and tell you I have no distinct plans at all, you probably still would think I'd follow the instructions given by our higher ups to travel to Canada. Even though I tell you that I have no plans that will dictate we do so, many would probably STILL expect us to follow the instructions. By blatantly disobeying those instructions, and inputting my own thing, without better feedback from you about your misunderstanding could lead you to think that we still are going to obey what we were told. I felt that the entire trip was just to help us get to know each other better...we didn't have to go to Canada to do that. Whether or not that falls in line with what the Business actually expected me to do...is probably up to the discretion of the Business. Bringing it back to the experiment, if she were able to talk to you during that time rather than the facial expressions, she may have expressed confusion as to why you were disobeying the directions they were given as she understood them. You obviously did not feel you were, but from her vantage point (and from what you described the exercise as doing in my understanding as well) you didn't exactly follow the instructions. She may have even felt that you were trying to outwit or prove that you were smarter than those who came up with the exercise in the first place! However, her understanding of the instructions differed from what you were trying to accomplish. She understood the instructions given from the instructors would involve conveying a central or basic idea or thought. She felt you would ultimately follow that. You instead felt that it was simply to get matching pieces of paper and you accomplished that goal. Ironically, it still could be utilized to show what the exercise was trying to point out already in how easy it is to misunderstand each other, except rather than just an idea, your and her misunderstanding went deeper into the very purposes of the exercise to begin with!

On the OAN thing, I am ignorant, and as such, probably am about to display ignorance. I have not read their stories nor really watched their network. From the picture posted I think I can understand what they are saying, though. It starts small and then the drain/rabbit hole keeps getting deeper the further from the main idea you get as you try to come up with a line of reasoning as to why one company could have caused the entire election to go to Biden. The line of reasoning would go from one point...to conjectured points as follows. 1. The electronic voting was done via a contractor, and as such, some people believe that there was some problems with how that contractor took the number of votes resulting with inaccurate results in at least one county and possibly more. 2. Because of that, the reasoning would be that this contractor got caught corrupting or changing what the actual results were in those counties. 3. When there is smoke there is fire, so if some may reason that if this contractor was actually changing the votes in a few counties, they actually changed them in all the other states they were in to some degree or not. 4. They changed the votes not just in all the states, but most of the counties. 5. They tried to be undetectable and so changed the votes just enough for close wins in many states that would have gone red instead...thinking they would not be caught...but aha...these conservatives have noticed! 6. As such, there must be evidence out there...and what do you know...the US military has caught them... 7. Then, for some unforeseen reason, OAN has gotten these from the military (personal interjection: how would they get that, wouldn't this be classified information???) and now we can see what the REAL numbers were and how the vote went BEFORE it was corrupted by these contractors... At least, that's what I would foolishly and ignorantly guess is the line of reasoning that is being presented... Edit - Is it possible? Of course it's possible. The biggest hole right away that I can see is how did they get the information from the US military though. If the US military (or CIA or FBI) got it, I would think it would still be under investigation and thus classified from public eyes at this point. Other than that, if it was public, I'd imagine there would be a much bigger scandal going on right now...if nothing else, that Fox News would be all over this.

From what you wrote, it sounds as if you both had a different understanding of what the mcguffin of the exercise was supposed to be. I would guess (and it is just a guess) that her thought was that there was supposed to be one central idea or picture (such as the Mona Lisa or another item similar) which was the basis for all the other smaller descriptions. When there was not one big central idea or picture behind your descriptions it confused her, as she thought that the point was to have one MAJOR or single idea conveyed that was the big picture overall. I would guess (once again, just a guess) was that your goal does not seem to be to convey a single Big idea which could be composed of a bunch of smaller ideas matched together. Instead it was to try to convey singular common items so that you could get matching pictures. Your goal then seems to be to have pictures that matched as closely as possible...or one set of pictures that paralleled each other on paper. The goal of the exercise I would guess (once again, a guess on my part and only a guess) was to show the difficulties of trying to convey an idea to another person. In this, the exercise is to have something somewhat complex in an idea and show that sometimes, even when we communicate, words may not be adequate enough to convey the exact thing we are thinking. We may get close, but it may not convey the exact idea at times, or that it can be difficult to understand that idea. (edit: Another guess could be regarding the speaker and feedback, and how it can be difficult with limited feedback to see if the other is really understanding you or otherwise). This could be seen between the two of you. Though you both ended up with matching papers and shapes, she never really understood what your goal was or why you were doing what you were doing, even though you felt you had communicated it clearly to her. This is also one reason I really write out LOOONG posts and try to specify and be clear about things and still, people don't always understand my thoughts or opinions on things or I still manage to convey them in the wrong manner.

Possibly, but the Church has far more virulent enemies than the BSA that are willing to go to further extremes as well. The BSA lawsuits have been ongoing for a while, with many of the first cases being leveled against LDS and Catholic Units (one could even say the Catholic scandals of prior years led directly to the BSA lawsuits today). If the BSA gets out of the way, just like the Catholic lawsuits did not stop them from going after the BSA, I expect the LDS church will be focused on far more.