JohnsonJones

Accordingly it appears 90% of the inhabitants of Provo, Utah are LDS. Census.gov It also appears almost 25% of Provo lives in poverty. I'd imagine many of them (and I may be wrong) graduated High school, didn't have children until they got married, and have or have tried to get a job and yet are living in poverty. Graduating High school, not having children until you get married, and getting a job (especially if it's just the type of job one can get out of high school these days sometimes, such as a Walmart Cashier) doesn't necessarily mean one is not going to experience poverty. Statistics can point that your odds of not being in poverty are better if you are not a single parent, have a College degree (times have changed, sure a High School degree means you have better odds with it than without, but many with HS degrees are in poverty these days then even 20 years ago), and have a job, but it being statistics...means there's no guarantee. It's like your chances of rolling a 6 or better are greater with two dice than one die, but you are probably going to have a lot rolls that are lower than that anyways.

The great blessing of Mormonism is that it explains the purpose of life. In a nutshell we say that the purpose of life is for man to have joy. We also say that this life is a test. But what sort of test. What follows is my Personal Belief on it and not Church teachings. We are the children of God. He is our Heavenly Father. As such, we can be heirs to all that he has. This includes being able to be Immortal Parents ourselves and to have almost limitless power. However, how can it be known whether we would be responsible with this power. How can it be known that we would still follow our Father and obey him when needed. The test in this life isn't determined on whether we find the gospel or not in this life and choose to follow it. There are millions who never had the chance to receive the gospel in this life. Receiving the gospel and choosing to follow it with all our heart can be part of the test. Having the gospel to guide us is absolutely a help in this life, but it is not necessary to find the gospel while in mortality. That can be done in the Spirit world. It is necessary that there are those who volunteered in the pre-existence to do the work for those who do have the blessings to get the gospel and it's ordinances in this life, and that's what we, as members are doing. However, this is no guarantee that we will pass the test. The test is one of personality. Are we naturally inclined to be someone who can be trusted to have the power of our Father. It is our very personality that is being tested. Can we be trusted or not? Part of this is to allow us all, good and evil, righteous and unrighteous, our free agency. The only way for the test to really be unbiased is to let us run the show. This is why the Church has leadership composed of men today, instead of us going to see Immortal Angels standing at the pulpit every time we go to conference, or Angels sitting in the place of the Bishop. Would it be easier to have Angels and those who have been granted Eternal blessings in immortality on the stand? Probably. It would also negate the test. We need to have good and the evil in order for us to be able to make choices. If we were all to know without a doubt, and know that if we were not good we would have consequences, then the test would be of no use. It would be as if we went with the adversaries plan instead. Sure, no one would be lost, but we also couldn't know the true nature of someone and if they could be trusted to have that eternal power. Without the true test, none of us could be shown to be able to trusted as our true nature, that what we show when left to ourselves, would be known. Evil exists, because we, as men, allow it to exists. It exists because the Lord cannot interfere enough to stop it, because if he did, then we would know and that would invalidate the test. We, not just as individuals, but collectively as a race, must be free to make our own choices, at least for this little while or period of time so that we are able to prove ourselves individually, no matter what we collectively may or may not be like.

Something of interest that was noted once a while ago and told to me (I am not someone who is an expert at business, so forgive me if this is wrong) is that people do not value that which is free. If you just add a little charge or make them pay for it, they will value it far more than something that is free. Even if that free item is worth far more than the item they paid for, they will value the item they paid for more. Sometimes, the more something costs, the more someone will value it. It does not matter what the real value is, the value is attached to the cost. A prime example is air. Almost everyone takes air for granted. On the otherhand, take a 100 inch TV. The individual will almost always prioritize that TV over the quality of their air, until that air is suddenly gone. Which is more important and more valuable to the individual? I don't now if this would really apply to what you are looking at with mercy, but I can see a way it could be applicable. If we are all saved, with very little effort except not doing something that sends us to Hell for the rest of eternity, than perhaps that will not be as treasured or valuable as something that we must put some effort into. By having a greater reward affixed to something which we must invest personally into, that reward will be more valued to us and the ones who get the reward will value it far more than if they had been given it for free (or practically for free). Again, I'm not sure if this applies to what you are suggesting or not, but it came to me as a thought when reading through your post, so...maybe?

Actually, much of the Constitution is about compromises from multiple sides of the field. There were those that felt the Amendment idea was too open, and others who felt it wasn't open enough in changing the Constitution. The ideas that some had about what should be in the Constitution at times were highly contested (for example, the Bill of Rights). Anti-Federalists in many instances were uncomfortable with the items that Federalists were pushing, and in fact would have had a very different way of handling the Constitution's articles if they had the power. Some of them would have desired to have the ability to have the Constitution rewritten (some...almost immediately) on a regular basis. Opposing this would be the Federalist which felt that they needed stronger governments and stronger writing on what our basis of government should be. Some of them did not even want the Amendments included and were opposed to what Anti-Federalists were demanding (in what eventually would become the Bill of Rights). Amendments were included as a possibility, but the items in the Bill of Rights were not. As the story goes, only under threat of non-ratification of the Constitution did some of the Federalists eventually relent in seeing the wisdom in accepting these amendments. Overall, neither side got what they wanted. They had to compromise (something our government should learn more about these days) to build a founding document that has withstood the test of time. Working together they forged this Constitution that has created our great nation of today. That's a very good point. I'd not say that the progressives are terrible and conservatives are great either. Without the progressives we'd still have jim-crow laws, segregation, we'd have interracial marriage outlawed, we'd still have states which probably would make it so that Asian-Americans (even full blooded Americans who were born and raised in the US but had Asian backgrounds) could not own land or property in some states, Religious Discrimination against LDS in the Southern States, etc...etc...etc). 50 years ago we still had places with segregation still in place, woman unable to have bank accounts (barely, they were finally allowed to in 1974), and lead in gasoline (which has been shown to have had an effect on mood, IQ, and behavior within those who were exposed to it, such as those along highways and other locales). I'd say a lot of the changes in society are far more complex than a simple conservative vs. liberal ideology. It has to do a lot with the growing power of the media, the increased ability of bad actors to interact with our population (via internet exchanges like tiktok, facebook, or other social media), and the popularization of entertainment mediums such as hollywood, thus giving certain groups of people with agendas far more power and sway over younger generations than we've had in the past. Are there things that the liberals have proposed which conservatives probably will say have led to worse outcomes (Rock & Roll for instance, or promiscuity as portrayed in film and TV)...absolutely. Have there been things that Conservatives have proposed that have led to worse outcomes (allowing government who have no medical training or education to dictate to doctors what they can or cannot do in regards to womans health, or to make the US healthcare system one of the most expensive in the world with less return then some third world nations)...absolutely. We can all complain about the other side, the question I think is what I said above. We are too busy pointing fingers and not working together enough. We need to find a way to compromise between both sides to build up America rather than constantly trying to tear each other down. Only one last comment I personally do not like Larry Correia. I won't get into details as that would not be appropriate, but due to my dislike, I have not read his books. I'd also probably dissuade someone (only based on my personal feelings, so no facts, no anything more) from buying or reading his books. This has nothing to do with his thoughts on gun control (I haven't ever had a discourse to see what those are with him in any way). I may even agree with his ideas on gun control. This is more of me just not liking the guy for other reasons.

Glad Georgia won, sorry you guys had to lose for them to do it. In other good news, Penn State lost. Only better news would have been if Oregon lost.

For an explanation of what is happening here is a video. The video is biased, but it has a decent explanation of the course of events.

Part of the reason some of these items are rights are because they do not need a government for an individual to do them. For example, an individual could always say what they wanted to say. It is a retroactive ability of a government to limit it, which means that you could outlaw someone from saying something, but you cannot actually prevent them from saying it. You can only punish them once they do say it. Unlike burglar's where you can put bars on windows and be proactive at prevention, you cannot actually prevent someone from speaking their mind unless you are willing to cut the voicebox out of every citizen in your nation (including those who govern). In this same way, nothing prevents someone from carrying a weapon. You can make punishments for after the fact, once you notice they are carrying a weapon, but you normally cannot stop someone from carrying a weapon. Even if you outlaw a weapon, many weapons can be created by hand (for example, guns now days can still be made in one's home if they know how to create one). You can tell someone that they cannot believe something, but you cannot control their mind. They will believe what they wish to or not wish to, irregardless of what you try to impose upon them. There are some rights that are not simply givens, such as freedom of the Press. These are freedoms where they are granted, in order to guarantee freedoms which should be granted. Freedom to bear arms is one that bridges the gap of where you can control (because many do not know how to create their own weapons, as well as creating a purpose for them...in this case...common defense) and where you cannot control (because there are those who can create their own weapons). It would be interesting if the Supreme Court came down with a ruling that states could not impose regulations on the control of firearms, thus allowing any and all to have firearms. I would say some of the firearm restrictions are too strict these days (we have veterans that bore weapons in defense of our nation, but are not allowed to have guns in their home legally...which I find repulsive), where as sometimes they are too lax (someone should have a barrier on when they buy the gun and when they actually get it, this helps prevent crimes of passion for example). I have no idea how the Supreme Court will rule or how extreme they may go. I know they tend to lean conservative, but how that may influence this decision is anyone's guess. They may not have imagined Nuclear Weapons, but I think they were well aware of how lethal the weapons they were talking about were. A lot of the talk about them restricting it only to groups like the National Guard is a lot of poppycock in my opinion. The 2nd Amendment has a basis in various groups during the Revolutionary War. It was not just the Minute Men, but how the Army actually was able to get more weapons and men itself. Part of the beginning of the Revolutionary War began with the British learning that the Colonials had military grade weaponry. They sent a taskforce out to basically seize bronze Cannons that could be used in a very deadly fashion which a civilian would not be utilizing. These were Not approved weapons and those who had these weapons were Not approved militia groups for these types of weapons. This wasn't just your rifles and other weapons and infantry man may have, these were military weapons. (for context today, if we relate these to modern day weapons, these would not be automatic or even semi-automatic rifles, these would be howitzers, tanks, and rocket launchers). This resulted in one of the first battles of the Revolutionary War (and the Colonials actually are seen to have won this one). As the war progressed, it was useful for men to be able to bring weapons which could be as deadly a combat weapon as what the British soldier had (so, in present day, if we were to use the analogy, everyone would be bringing a fully automatic with semi-auto options assault rifles. They'd be bringing their own AK-47 or M-16/M-4/M-1 to the registration of the army. They may even also have their own grenades and occasionally their own tank). This is what the founders were trying to protect. They saw the populace as the armed militia. The populace could have their own personal militias, as opposed to state sponsored ones (which is what were primarily fighting the British early on in the Revolutionary War), or, even each individual could be a part of a greater populace which was a militia (the people's militia, which is not something like the minute men, but where each individual has their own weaponry so that when war comes they can unite together to fight a common enemy). The US has lost this over the past few centuries, but it's not a historical mystery, and it shouldn't even be a question today of what the founders intended with the amendment. The US today does Not reflect their original intent. Switzerland or Israel may, but slightly altered. They probably are the closest to what the original intent of the founders were to what they intended for the 2nd amendment. I think it was Jefferson who made a comment that this idea would make it so no government could truly become tyrannical, because when your populace itself is well armed as a militia, it would be impossible for the government to use a military to effectively conquer them. They, in turn, could use their weaponry to overcome a tyrannical government. if we were true to the amendment today we probably would have far less restrictions on weapons and we'd have a Lot of assault rifles as something many more possessed...just in case the government went bad. A distrust of government was built into many of the founder's ideas of why we should have protections on certain rights as well. We'd probably have a lot of people with modern tanks, fighter jets, and munitions. The best stuff would be available to citizens (if they could afford it). On the otherhand, the founders also saw that society would change over time and values, as well as desires, would also change. Thus, things and interpretations of what things meant would change. Some of the founders even felt that there should basically be a new Constitution written every few years to every few decades to account for this change. Hence, what their original intent was, for some, was seen to only be good for a few decades, and then something else would have to take it's place. In essence, in that interpretation, the concerns over weaponry and who has what are valid today and it may be, in that light, our laws are far too lax (afterall, who wants to see Donald Trump or Elon Musk or Walmart having their own personal armies with F-22's and M1A2 Abrahms)? It was meant to evolve, but I think many have forgotten that aspect of the Constitution as well over the past few decades, as we have had fewer amendments passed in the past 30 years than we had on average for the couple hundred prior.

That's not a very high standard. I think Wendy's actually has utensils (and chili and potatoes as well!). The currently have biggie bags (which vary between $5-$9 depending on where you live), so it's even cheaper than those other burger joints! For less than $20 you could go to a restaurant with utensils today! PS: I am not affiliated with Wendy's, and though it may seem like it, I am not actually promoting them...I hope. I'd probably prefer KFC currently over Wendy's. I like KFC better than Popeyes. For Burger joints, I prefer Whataburger. They are not cheap presently either.

That actually looks like a pretty cool looking hat and Dark MAGA sounds cooler than just MAGA or Trumper... This represents better life choices? I think she endorsed Harris. Are you still a fan?

I'd have posted this in Church news and events, but it appears I cannot start posts in that forum. Saints volume 4 is now available Not sure if everyone has the other three volumes. This takes the Church history up to 2020. Good reading to all of you.

It was a litmus test I thought up of. It could be a flawed litmus test as I thought it up in the moment. It is based on my belief that Jesus Christ and the gospel are bigger than any individual, no matter how important. It should not matter whether a Church leader is righteous or not (especially the prophet) in order for us to listen to them and recognize their authority in the church. Edit: I should add, I cannot answer your question. No One But You can answer your question. It's something that only you would know. I have things you can do to reflect and figure out your own answer if you do not know already, but in truth, it is only a question each individual can answer for themselves. No, it doesn't mean you worship him, but it could call for further introspection. What does worship mean to you? What do you do when you participate in worship? One particularly popular form of worship today is celebrity worship. Celebrity worship could be seen as a form of idolatry. What does that include? Some items this may include... You post pictures of the celebrity everyplace. This is far more than if one put a picture of their bank president or leader of an organization on a wall to recognize who it is. This is where you post pictures of them everywhere. You have posters of them hanging in your bedroom, you have pictures of them on your phone...etc. You praise them repeatedly. If we put this in context of worship of the Lord, you praise them and talk about them more than you talk and praise the Lord. You have a collection about them. You have some sort of thing which collects things on them (articles, a book of pictures you've collected, autographs, etc). You feel they can do nothing bad. If they were caught doing something bad, or accused of it, it would shock you. You could not believe it, even if it were true. (and, ironically, when this happens with some celebrities, when those who worshiped them finally admit it, they go to the extreme opposite of celebrity worship of that celebrity, which is one reason celebrity worship of church leaders may not be a good thing if the church leader ever has something bad attributed to them, as those who do celebrity worship tend to go the exact opposite extreme if they ever finally accept that). Your life centers around that celebrity. You would abandon everything if the celebrity told you to do so. You would do whatever it would take to be around that celebrity or to brag that you did something with that celebrity. The celebrity is more important than close friends or family relationships. And finally the crux of it....IMO If you found out that the Leader or celebrity you follow (for example, lets say the almost all the Quorum) were actually evil and were literally trying to lie to you and they were convicted of such, or openly admitted that they were frauds...would that destroy your testimony of the gospel? No individual should have the power that if they were shown to be false or fallen, to lead you away from the gospel of Jesus Christ. I too would hope that the Lord would never choose someone who is unrighteous to be in Church leadership, but I have seen those who have fallen away from the church because of actions that some Church leaders have done (note, nothing with Russell M. Nelson), I have seen some who have had some problems with others who are currently church leaders. Some of these things actually could be seen as rather bad and actually pretty terrible things. Obviously, I'm not going to post them here, but I am aware of them. This is one reason I feel you Cannot base your testimony or faith on men. It should not matter whether they are righteous or not in regards to us following and adhering to the gospel. It should make no difference. The Lord has chosen men who were not perfect before to be leaders (prime example would be Sampson. Even Moses was a murderer and a poor speaker and he was chosen to be a prophet). Does this mean we should point this out about them and make a big deal about their imperfections. My Opinion is that we should not. If we try to point out their imperfections and faults, that would be akin to evil speaking. But sometimes we take it too far. People have difficulties and questions in the church. If tell people they cannot even talk about problems they have with decisions made in the church, or worse, excommunicate them simply because they have difficulties with certain aspects, that will lead to them finding other avenues to vent (and some of those avenues are going to be where the advice they get will be from enemies of the church rather than those who can actually help them overcome these problems) and that could be problematic. I don't see the advice of no evil speaking to mean to not have the ability to express difficulties or problems people may have, but that we should not slander (mock, tear down, or ascribe evil) our leaders.

Worshipping the prophet and apostles over the Lord means that you act as if they are like what the Catholics say the Pope is. You see them as infallible. This leads to people stumbling when we do this, and I see that there are many who stumble today because they see a problem with something a leader does and are told to either accept it or leave. In some instances, they choose to leave rather than to resolve the issue. This very thread has people saying that if someone has problems with a man, they cannot voice those problems. This comes VERY close to worship, if not a form of worship. Infallibility, or the belief of infallibility (the idea that a man, such as a pope, cannot make a mistake or to be wrong) is inherent in worshipping. The gospel directs us that we are not to see our leaders as infallible or worship them in the place of deity (and of interest, the example Nephi gives to his brothers not to worship him, but the Lord instead). However, what I see in reality is the idea of people worshipping a man rather than the Lord. You can criticize things that you are having problems with. Evil speaking is a different item. It is when one slanders the chosen of the Lord. I'm not going into detail on this, but the difference would be if someone had a problem with where a temple was being built and felt it may cause problems with the local populace. That's a problem with temple construction, but not necessarily the prophet. Saying bad things about the prophet and decrying their position as the prophet would, on the otherhand, be evil speaking. Instead, in this thread I see some who seem to correlate the two and say you cannot ever have problems with decisions from the top. That is almost akin to saying you need to accept something because whatever they do is like a deity doing it. The idea goes that because one gets revelation from deity, they are acting as deity and thus are to be treated as deity. I see this in this thread, and I see it occurring among church members. They do not say it in that way, normally just saying one cannot express "criticism" or what they have difficulties in, but when saying things like that, it equates to this same idea. Seeing church leaders as infallible is a problem. Invariably this causes problems in most religions that adhere to this, because when people see that they are led by men, instead of a deity, they start to question. If they aren't allowed to see that these are men and that men make mistakes (and this is the problem when we conflict these ideas between evil speaking, and the ability to have an opinion or think critically about our own beliefs) and resolve that issue, many will think that we believe in the infallibility and deification of Church leaders when in reality, this is found nowhere in the gospel itself. I see a LOT of people online criticizing church leaders and giving that as a reason they left (which really is evil speaking in this instance when that occurs). If they could have had their questions given and addressed instead, where they realized that following the gospel and it's tenets does not necessarily mean accepting that men can do no fault, I think some of the problems we have with some members today could have been resolved in a better fashion. I'll quote the following. Though it has been toned down since it first was written, it would have been easiest simply to state this was done by a Prophet, as given by revelation. It does not say that this was revelation or divinely given. It does not say it has anything to do with his prophetic calling and in fact says that NO explanations of why these restrictions were given are accepted today as official doctrine of the church. It is NOT hard to see where people may get the idea that it was something that Brigham Young himself just created, rather than something under the umbrella of Brigham Young's calling. It would be easy enough to simply state that, rather than leaving the implication that the church has no idea or doesn't know (original wording was that they did not know why) this was done. Then they include this section which Heavily implies it was done for other reasons that prophetic inspiration or revelation You may disagree with the idea of the implication, but you are not society at large and most of society taking in the above three paragraphs are going to see that the priesthood ban was not due to inspiration, but due to other circumstances. I am not saying I agree with such interpretations of why the ban occurred, but the essay itself has what could be seen as a very strong implication that the ban was not incurred due to divine purposes, but social and cultural problems during that time period. We can also see the church implying similar ideas on how Plural Marriage was implemented, though not quite as strongly implied as we see with the Priesthood ban essay. This is from the Plural marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo essay It's not that plural marriage would then be uninspired, but it calls into question on whether it was followed correctly or not. Once again, seeing that there are those that read these church essays and get that these things were not inspired, or how they were implemented were not inspired is not something that is hard to see. It is there before our eyes. I'm not saying that I agree with that assessment, but I've seen enough people who have drawn these types of conclusions from these essays that I'd say the accusations saying I'm seeing something that's not there are sort of a false witness against me. PS: Here's a litmus test I thought of to help determine whether you see church leaders as men, or see them as some sort of divine figure. Do you think the Prophet (or which ever church leader you are asking about) is righteous? Why do you think this? If your answer boils down to something such as...they are the prophet, of course they are righteous (and perhaps are more righteous than me), you probably are not seeing them as a man. You have assigned to them that by virtue of position, they have to be something which you may or may not have evidence of. (and this happens in society far more than just worship of church leaders, we see it with celebrities and many others. The shock some people have when they find a celebrity has done evil, or others have, shows how this type of celebrity worship can lead people to think things that are not necessarily correct about others. The truth is in most instances, people have no evidence one way or the other regarding how righteous one is or is not). If you say they are not righteous, that may actually also point to a serious problem if you are ascribing it simply due to their position as well. How can you tell whether they are righteous or not simply from their position in life? There may be other reasons to say they are righteous or unrighteous and that implies that you aren't worshiping them for their position, but if your reasoning that they are or are not comes from their calling that they have (and be honest with yourself), then yes, that starts to become a type of worship, just like any other form of celebrity worship. There are many saints out there that I know will say someone is righteous (or more righteous) simply because they know that person is called to a certain calling (Bishop, Stake President, and above that, Seventies, Apostles, and Prophets). Maybe, for some odd reason, you have not seen this, but I have seen it from members in every place I've lived and every ward I've gone to in some way or fashion. We are supposed to follow the Prophet and he speaks to us for the Lord. However, that does not mean we know who he really is (unless, of course, he is your personal friend or relative, which some of you may have that relationship with the Prophet or an apostle) and what his own personal life is like.

There are many who have problems with some of the things Brigham Young did. One that I take exception with is the Adam-God theory. Most do not understand it or what Brigham was actually saying. As Joseph Fielding Smith pointed out, Brigham Young readily stated that there were three members in the Godhead, as we also acknowledge. He also acknowledged a difference between who The Father was in the Godhead and Adam's role as Micheal. It is (or has been in the past, probably still is, even if it isn't as explicit) made extremely clear in certain activities in the Temple, and in other items that originated from Brigham's and Wilford Woodruff's time. Thus, most of what people think Adam-God is saying, is actually not accurate. It was due to these inaccurate understandings that the church eventually had to say it was not doctrine, because the way people were understanding it is not doctrine nor doctrinally sound. However, what Brigham Young said and felt it was...is doctrinally sound. It comes down to how people misunderstand what he said and what he was saying. When it is understood it makes certain temple ceremonies make a lot more sense and the symbolism inherent with them far more applicable and understandable. (unfortunately, I'm skirting way to close to the edge of things already, so I unfortunately cannot expound further on this unless we someday find ourselves in the temple ourselves where we may be able to discuss it more openly). As for the other things, I feel the Brigham Young was inspired as a prophet. I know there are those who don't agree with that in certain areas (for example, the above areas of polygamy and the racial ban, which I think most snufferites have as a pretty strong bastion of belief). In this, I can say we don't have to believe everything that a prophet says is inspired to believe that the prophet is to be followed. The prophet is a man. The problem I see in the church today is that people worship the prophet and apostles rather than worshipping the Lord. This leads to an idea that they are infallible (like the pope supposedly is). They are not. They are men, and as men can make mistakes. So what if they said or did something that is not doctrinally sound? Does that make them a fallen prophet instantly? My question would be if the gospel is still intact. If it is, then it doesn't matter in the long run. As long as we have not apostatized from the gospel of our Lord, than we are still good. The Gospel continues, the ordinances for salvation and exaltation continue, and the church continues on with it's mission. The prophet and apostles may be men and thus fallible, but Jesus Christ is perfect as is his gospel, and thus are the pathway for us to follow. The prophet and apostles are the accessories to help us along that path. With Salvation, it has to be our own decisions and choices to follow Jesus Christ and his mercy and atonement. It is not in the ability nor capacity for a prophet or apostle to save us. Thus, they are there to help us on our way in the best way they can, but it is on us to follow the gospel's principles and ordinances in order to accept the Lord's atonement that is what we truly are striving for. When we talk about the Prophet's and apostles, if we have problems that are nagging us and tearing us from the gospel, it is probably good to try to talk to someone about it to help us resolve the issue (before we fall away due to petty things). I would not classify that as talking evil, but trying to overcome personal problems one has. People make mistakes, and people have different opinions on things. Discussing differences of opinions on things is not necessarily a bad thing. When we make one person's opinion taboo to discuss, and put them on a pedestal equal to deity, I think there becomes a grave problem. The problem is not being able to tell the difference between worshipping someone, and adhering to another's guidance in how to follow the Lord while understanding they may make mistakes, thus ultimately it is on us to make the right choices and decisions. In the first we can blame the prophet or apostles for any sins or shortcomings we have. In the latter, our sins are on us and is a reason we need the atonement of our Lord. On the otherhand if one is trying to destroy the church and the testimonies of the saints on purpose, and will in no wise ever change their mind on it, that is probably evil speaking and should not be done. I feel many snufferites at this point are doing this, and that would qualify as evil speaking...in my opinion. PS: I should add, on the Priesthood ban and on polygamy, the Church essays at some points imply that they were not inspired. This is particularly strong in the essay relating to the Priesthood ban. It doesn't not go explicitly into blaming Brigham Young as making it as merely a man rather than a prophet, but it has heavy implications into certain aspects. If an LDS author is basing their current ideas off of the essays, then it is not hard to see where they may get the idea that the Priesthood ban and Polygamy were not inspired actions by Brigham Young. I am not saying I agree with that position, but reading the Church essays on those topics certainly can give someone that opinion these days.

Most likely because the first time around he caused massive inflation (almost runaway inflation according to some). The first year or so of a President's term and the economic situation in it is normally not something they had a hand in. Even in year two you can only start seeing what their policies may start doing. Year 3 and 4 are when you can start seeing what is going on and how big an impact it may have. The massive inflation at the beginning of Biden''s term was something that wasn't fully Trumps fault either, but the actions in regards to trying to save lives worldwide. The US actually did better at getting a handle on the inflation then some other nations in the world. However, when looking at some of the causes in the US of the inflation, it's not hard for economists to see that some of it was directly the result of some Trump policies. Now that he is saying he's going to take those same policies and go even further than before, it's probably easy for them to say it will be a disaster. My problem with Trumps policies was that it exploded the deficit. He didn't reign in spending, and neither did the Republicans under his watch. They literally exploded the deficit to unforeseen levels. It's insane. I didn't profit from it either. My taxes (I know many got better taxes for a while, my didn't get better with the new rules) were worse from Trumps tax policies. Combining those two, I don't see good outcomes from Trumps monetary policies in 4 years time. I'm sure there must be an economist out there that doesn't agree with the others who are saying doom and gloom about Trump though, there's always that voice that goes contrary to the others.

What is of extreme interest is what I highlighted... I try to point out to people what it means to have everything in common among a people. Many on these forums do not like this idea.

That says Tommy Brookshire did that...not a Frank Frazetta. I get he's combining two different ideas, but...not a Frazetta.

I love Reubens, but I use corned beef. I'm not Russian though. If they use pastrami at restaurants I'm not opposed and still love the reuben. I am not the type that dislikes Rye bread, swiss cheese, sauerkraut, or Dressings in general. I had a kid or two that hated tomatoes but loved ketchup. They hated tomatoes so much they'd take them off of their sandwiches and hamburgers and such. Then they'd pile the ketchup (Catsup) on.

Not aimed necessarily at you, but in general for all who feel this way... Our perceptions of history change at times, and the Rommel myth is slowly changing in our modern times. Though Rommel still holds the idea that he was a brilliant military strategist and tactician, some historians today are questioning how much of this is actually true. Rommel's poor grasp of logistics may have done far worse at weakening the German armies in the North as well as dooming his own actions in Africa far more than Patton's doing over the long haul. In addition, many question Rommels choice to return and leave the Western lines right before Normandy when he knew invasion was imminent. Rommel Myth Obviously, those who feel Rommel was not brilliant are the minority, but the sea of wanting to make a mark on history (as well as get your PhD) is pressing some to question the original premises of Rommel's genius. PS: Me, I'm not a huge fan of revisionist history, but for several decades now it seems revisionist history is all the rage. It's not that I agree with the idea that Rommel wasn't brilliant, I just thought I'd post an opposing opinion to make us think and ponder what we accept as given fact vs. what may or may not be true.

I think it's more complex than that. It's not just the small number that are accessing locker rooms for their own perverted measures, but the larger issue of whether mtf should even be competing in primarily women's sports with the biological advantages that they have already gained just by being male, despite any genetic formulas or medicines they are taking to reduce their testosterone levels. A physically disabled individual many times is unable to particpate in certain sports due to physical factors. We normally do not say or try to enable them to participate in sports with other ably bodied individuals and we do not give them advantages in order to allow them to do so. This applies almost universally except when dealing with those who are Transgendered. I have on problem allowing ftm to compete in men's sports. Normally the physical disadvantages they have gained in life will prevent them from doing well, but if they can do well (just like occasionally someone who is physically disabled can do well in a sport) then good for them. It is the other way around (mtf) in which I think we should not allow transgendered to compete in general unless there are extenuating circumstances (for example, they went on puberty blockers and never got the advantages a male body gets from puberty, etc...though allowing children to take these is another issue in and of itself regarding the medical ramifications...etc). In general I can support transgendered individuals opportunity to live their lives as they wish, but in regards to mtf specifically participating in women's sports I am opposed.

Sports are fun, but I wouldn't say they are the end all to be all. I, obviously, have the teams I cheer for, and I get very into being a fan of some of them, but at the end of the day it really doesn't matter. In 1000 years, will it really matter that one team beat another? Is it really that important? I think too often people want to feel part of a team (even if just as a fan) and glory in beating another bunch of people. They forget that it's actually fun. Sports that are only about teamwork, struggle, responsibility, and the will to overcome miss the point of what games are...and the reasons for them in my opinion. The reason for the game is to have fun. If a game is no longer fun, I don't think it's worth it anymore. If the only reason you can have fun in a game is because you get to beat someone, I don't think that makes for a very good learning environment or a very good sport. There is a thrill to triumph, but anyone who only lives to feel the triumph of a win misses almost 99% of the game. It's about the game (the journey) and the experience of it. If you can only enjoy the end, you've missed the journey. I think that's for much of life as well. If you are always only anticipating the end of something (such as saving for all your life so that you will be able to be a multimillionaire and retire richly in old age, but are miserable for the rest of it) but never enjoy the journey, I think you are missing out. Of course, then you have my situation where I now have to work in my old age (or, at least continue to work to retain my standard of living I'm accustomed to, I could retire and live off of less...which is becoming more and more tempting every day) because instead of planning heavily for the future I lived to enjoy the day. The good thing though is I can look back at life and say I tried my best to enjoy what I was blessed with rather than forget to be grateful for what I had then while being miserable because I feared what the future could bring.

Congratulations on BYU doing so well. I would say it is a little unexpected, but good job! I would like to point out a tiny little thing. See that little G up there, right next to #2... That stands for UGA. Just thought I'd point that out as well. Hopefully this is not a sign of pride cometh before the fall though...it sure would be nice to see Georgia at #1.

We had a tree fall recently in our yard as well...unfortunately it did not miss the house. We were blessed though. The roof withstood the tree and no damage (that we could see) was caused. The biggest problem was that the tree was too heavy for me and my wife to lift off. We were blessed again with a grandson that came and was able to cut the tree apart and then take it off (not sure what he did with the wood) for us.

It varies from site to site and spot to spot. Here's one NPR swing state analysis from a week ago Here's another story covering it Election poll trump winning four of seven key swing states The NBC poll some are taking pretty seriously... Project Five thirty Eight And of all places for the Saints, this popped up in my google feed! From the Deseret News Swing States polls Trump Harris 2024

In some ancient societies, the wife would be the master of the home, the queen of the abode, while the husband was the king for everything else. In essence, a child would grow up in their home under the guidance and leadership of their mother. Their father would be out and about with his work in society beyond the home. When the child became an adult and dealt with things beyond the home, then they would be in their father's world. The Father would always lead the home, and be the one in charge, but as he had responsibilities outside the home, the mother would be the one who took care of the home itself and directed the things within. She would ultimately report to her husband and he was over her, but generally in the home it was her word that was law. I feel this was fashioned after a more eternal way of how things work. As @laronius points out above, Christ is the head of the Church. Husbands would look to Christ for guidance and instruction. Wives would look to their husbands. In such a way there was order within the church and the home. This used to be taught explicitly in LDS teachings and in various places, some of which this has been done away with. However, the scriptures still talk of it. I relate this because it is possible that when we were spirit children, we lived in our Father's house and in that house we were under the care and guidance of a Heavenly Mother. We have grown into being responsible now, or at least in part, as we grow to our spiritual adulthood. We are no longer stuck in the house, we are in the world our Father works in, and as such, he is the one we turn to. In addition, as the Father is the leader of the family, it is ultimately he who we need to turn to . Luckily, as in many large families, we also have a very caring older brother who pledged to look after us and try to take care of us. If we follow our older Brother and heed his teachings in regards to our Father we eventually can also have eternal families with our own homes and households which will probably follow a similar process.

So, I have been teaching people to have a testimony in the gospel over the past few years. The gospel of Jesus Christ is perfect, but the leadership (and in fact, none of us) is not. The Leadership of the Church are men. They are given the keys which lead to salvation. This does not mean that they are the best people in the church, the most righteous, or the greatest individuals who are presently alive. The problem is that people do not see it that way. They worship the leaders (which should not be, but it is what it is). Because they see many of the leaders as wealthy, it has led to a sort of prosperity gospel idea bounding in some circles of the church. The gospel teaches us that the first shall be last, and the last shall be first. That's not just applicable in who receives the gospel, but from my readings, also in regards to those who have power and wealth on this earth vs. those who do not. If there is any justice (and we believe the Lord is just) than those who lord over others in this life with the power given them, who dictate things on personal whim and their own personal feelings rather than truth and light, will come after those who are humble and meek followers of the Lord. This world is heavily influenced by the adversary. I have seen corruption in our university and the struggles over who gets to be in charge. The higher one gets up in authority, it seems the more corruption follows them. I've noticed this also tends to occur in every other aspect of our society whether it be government, business, or even religions. With the way our religion handles callings it tends to have less corruption (in my opinion) as one normally can't vie for positions, but that does not preclude it from occurring. I've seen murderers, adulterers, and those who cheat others among the church leadership. What does that mean? It simply means that we are still human. We all make mistakes. Until men are perfect, the organizations led by men will not be perfect. The Church as organized is made for man. It is the vehicle by which we can receive the ordinances to attain exaltation. Being in leadership does not dictate whether one is more or less righteous. Remember the Lord is Just. No blessing that some leader decides to dictate will fall upon them, will come upon them before it falls on those who are judged more worthy by the Lord. It doesn't matter what position they have in this life, they do not have power to dictate to the Lord over the realms of justice and mercy. They cannot claim to have some blessing beyond what others have due to their wealth and position while denying others who may be more worthy of it. They do not get to dictate who is truly worthy and who is not if it contradicts what the Lord desires. It may not be seen in this life, but it will be in the next. The Lord is also merciful. None of us deserve to be saved in the Kingdom of Heaven. No matter what we do, we all fall short of what we need to be doing. He sees our hearts and our minds and knows each of us much better than others do. He knows if we truly want to follow him and what our reasons for following him are. He will rewards us better than what we deserve. He knows the smallest and most unseen as well as those who are mighty and powerful. He loves all of us and what may seem small to us may be mighty things to him, and what may seem mighty things to us may seem insignificant to him. Many of the positions of Leadership were known before the world was created. There was a plan put forth and we are following that plan. Each leader may be participating and doing their part of that plan, but that does not mean they are justified or saved. Only the Lord knows what is just and merciful. One of the best items I've ever read was about an experience a lady had during a short period where she had passed beyond the veil (though obviously she returned). During it she saw a man who was homeless and begging on the street. This man was lauded by the angels in heaven. He had chosen that position in the pre-existence. The reason was that his friend in the pre-existence had also chosen a path where he would have great wealth and power. Every day that man of power passed by the homeless man. The homeless man was there to help his friend to hopefully remember to be humble, to give away money to charity, to value things of heaven over that of the world. I do not know if the homeless man was successful (she did not see the end of it or how it would end up), but the homeless man was considered one of the greatest individuals of heaven. The least of the people that we see was one of the greatest and most praised individuals. I think that's how it works at times. We are taught what is valuable to us on this earth by worldly concerns, but worldly matters are not what is important in heaven. For me (personally) it also reflects a commandment that was given as a basic item in the Old Testament. This applies to me, and may not necessarily be of concern to anyone else. It is that we should not covet. Why do we want to have the positions of power that the General Authorities have? Why should we care? When we covet, we make ourselves unhappy. If we do not covet, we can be happy with what we have. They are serving in their assigned roles in this life. If we are to believe some of the scriptures, these are roles they were chosen for before coming here. This does not guarantee them salvation or exaltation, nor does it even mean they are more righteous than others in this life. It means that they are fulfilling the areas for which they were selected as those who would bear the church and try to ensure it could accomplish it's mission of the salvation of men. This does not make them better than you or I, merely as other servants serving in their capacity as you or I may serve in ours. I know it can be hard to see rich and powerful people, or those with connections being the leaders at times while those who are poor and humble are left out. I see it at times as well. The thing to remember is that those who have their glory in this life have their rewards of such things, but there are many who are poor and humble who receive a greater reward in the hereafter. In this, I commend you for staying with the gospel, and trying to remain true to the covenants you have made. I would urge you to remain true and endure to the end. I know it may not be easy (and probably is a lot harder for you than many others). Remember though that what you may perceive in this life with those who are held in honor among men, may not necessarily reflect what the LORD sees and what the Lord will reward. Know that he is just and merciful, and pray for that justice and mercy in your life, along with praying for the rest of us who need it so dearly as well. I don't have the perfect answers for you. I can only supply a long and verbose post (which you have read above) on some things I feel on the matter. I don't have all the answers, and I am sorry I can't answer your question well enough. However, I hope that in some way my post may give you hope that what you may think of those being favored with positions and glory in this life is what the world sees, but when talking about things with the Lord, his way may not necessarily be the same view, or the same approach as that of the world. If I had the power (and luckily I don't, I'd probably make a mess of it) I'd make a greater equality among the Lord's people. No one would have greater authority than others except when absolutely necessary. Authority would be granted in regards to time and righteousness. Someone who was worthy for 55 years would automatically become a High Priest...there would be none of this nepotism and favoritism I see (and none of my sons are High Priests if that tells you anything while I have seen those who have committed heavy crimes be anointed as such). We would still need those who have certain keys in positions, but as far as authority and other blessings go, it would be far more even without having the haves and have nots in the church. I have one Son-in-Law who has become a Bishop and he's probably the worst one of the bunch (some may say a father is biased though in regards to who his daughter married??). He is probably the most well off of all of those related to me, and he has a beautiful house (quite large, one would even say a mansion). He is proudful and just kicked his own son (my grandson) out of the house for no reason other than his son was now an adult. It's infuriating. Yet the church has made him a Bishop and my sons are not even High Priests. I can understand why such things can make one angry or lose hope. I am also pleased to say that thus far, my sons are still loyal and faithful in the church. As I have said in this overly lengthy post, we must have faith in the Lord. We must understand that the Lord's way is not necessarily man's way, and what the Lord sees is not necessarily what man sees. A Lot of this is Faith. I've said this a lot in this post, but I do not feel I can say this enough, the things that are important to the Lord are many times seen as the least things of importance to man, and those things men hold up as important (riches, positions of power, etc) are seen as worthless to the Lord. His church on this earth has to have order, and for that it has men organized to keep it that way. However, as it is an organization made for men and led by men, it will have ensuing problems as such because men are not perfect and value things that are different than what the Lord values. The church is there as a vessel to bring us the gospel and it's blessings. It is made for us, but we are not made for it. We are made to be the Lord's. We are the Lord's servants and saints, not some Stake Presidents or higher individuals lackeys. We are the Children of a Father in Heaven, not the slaves of men. I've gone on too long with this post, but I'd like to conclude in urging you to keep the faith. I don't have the answers you are seeking, but I can empathize with how you feel. Know that there are many out there that are not church leaders and who struggle day to day. The most important thing is to keep true to the gospel. Follow Jesus Christ and embrace the atonement in your life. If you try your best to keep your covenants and follow the Lord, I feel that you will be rewarded in heaven as richly and as deservedly as anyone else in this life no matter their station or lot.