JohnsonJones

In Vancouver and the Vancouver area, I think there are a lot of Saints in that area if I recall correctly.

They were Marxists (communists). That's an ideal from the Marxists (not normally something they can institute, but it's in there) about an ideal society. Aren't you a Libertarian? Which fits...most Gators seem to be against taxes as well and tend to do whatever they want within their sphere of influence. In fact, when the government intervenes in their lives (such as dragging them out of someone's pool or going to a neighborhood where the gator is casually lying on someone's lawn and then putting the gator in a cage and taking it to a far away body of water) they tend to be a little aggravated. And here I thought it meant Single Jewish Woman...but then, that's only because when I hang out with my Bureau of Land Management Buddies, everyone seems to think I'm African American, but when I say that to others around me when I get back, they all think I've been to an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting.

I miss how often they used to broadcast Conference at the Chapels. It used to be a thing that we would all get together to watch conference together. It felt like it was something that still united us in a common cause. On Sunday it reminded us that it was still Sunday. (Edit: One other thing I recall about conference before the internet was widespread and it was made more available was that missionaries tended to really love to invite investigators to watch a session with them at the chapel. It would help with the spirit and they hoped investigators could feel it there too). In some locations we could not get the broadcast, even with Satellite (when it existed) or via Radio. I remember getting recordings of conference (so not even video of it) and being able to listen to it on a specified Sunday. Later, I remember watching videos of it. When in another part of the world conference would come on at a crazy hour so they would record that session and play it later for people to watch. Today it seems they expect everyone in my area to have a way to watch it via the internet or TV. I do, but I wonder about those who live in poverty which do not have such ease. I was driving during part of the first session on Saturday as I had something I had to do and tried to see if any Radio stations at all in my area would have it. They didn't. Not even AM radio. One blessing we have today though IS the internet. I can go and probably pull up the Saturday Morning Session to be able to watch it via the church internet site. That is something that we were unable to do in the past.

I haven't had a more troublesome week before conference that I can recall (not that it has not happened. There have been many conferences in my lifetime and I honestly do not remember what each week before them has been like). I have had some tough weeks before and can relate to that. There are times when nature itself seems to conspire against me in what I am trying to do or needing to do. Those times can be fraught and difficult. I have no words that can solve such things or make them easier, only that I tend to pray a lot more (in all honesty, we should be praying always, but I don't always pray aloud as much as I do during times of trouble).

Unfortunately I don't do much with AI myself. It seems interesting. If it helps others gain better testimonies or to learn about the gospel that's a good thing.

What does one mean when they say Woke? Looking it up on Wikipedia (yes, perhaps not the best site for some, but it generally has a good summation of things) says Is this a bad thing to be aware of racial prejudice and discrimination, or aware of things such as identity politics, social justice, white privilege and slavery reparations? It is a great irony that it seems that the term, woke, which comes from awoken and thus from awaken seems to have it's first appearance among Republicans and their political points over 150 years ago In that light...are we awake? Do you Awake and Arise? So, with that in mind, is my employer...Woke? I suppose you could say it is woke, when you have these ideas in mind. It has a department devoted to Diversity, Equality, and Inclusion. Are we opposed to Diversity, Equality, and Inclusion? I thought the Church taught that the atonement was for everyone, that the gospel was for everyone? ----------------------------------------------------------- In the mid 20th century the term woke took on a more specific meaning among African-American Communities where it was more about being aware AND informed about issues pertaining to the Civil Rights movement and issues relating to African-American rights. At the time many were against these rights and fought against allowing certain rights to be given to African-Americans. Many alive today feel that those who fought against equality and inclusion of African-Americans were in the wrong, that those who fought to allow more equality for our African-American who are fellow citizens were the ones in the right. I agree with that sentiment. Does that make me woke? ----------------------------------------------- Recently the term has been broadened by both groups on the Left and the Right to include the ideas regarding various rights and ideas regarding the LGBTQIA+ movement. Conservatives have increasingly used it as an insult, while Liberals have used it to try to equate the LGBTQIA+ movement to the Civil Rights movements for racial equality. Both sides do not necessarily inquire after how the African-Americans feel about them taking the term and using it for their own usage. That said, in my university we do pay attention to the concerns raised by the LGBTQIA+ community and we are told to try to adhere to certain standards in regards to students and others who may identify in certain ways or patterns. We are told to respect their wishes in certain aspects of their lives and personal feelings. So, yes, I work for a "Woke" employer I suppose. I am immersed in the "Woke" culture that is found in many universities today. I am also a Latter-day Saint who firmly believes in the gospel. I am a fellow brother in the Church and I try to strictly follow the commandments that we have been given.

Morally unacceptable could be any range of things. It does not necessarily even have to be anything that would damage church membership or break any church rules. It could be that he was name dropping in order to get money for a vacation, or to spend on advertising or any number of other areas. The article isn't clear on why they had a separation of will there. I'm not really into Utah Politics right now, but it could be that he was using the apostles name as a way to try to show that the Church endorsed him for a political candidate. I have no idea. As for other things, if there were crimes committed or if he is innocent, hopefully justice is done and he is either proven innocent or guilty depending on whether he really is guilty or innocent.

Generally I can turn on BYUTV and not have to worry about whether the show will be appropriate to watch or not. It's nice to have a channel that I can simply have no worries about it. In addition I enjoy the ability to watch Music and the Spoken Word as well as various devotionals and talks that they broadcast. Finally, I don't have access to other avenues that some may have (such as KSL, or other places) for when they broadcast conference. I normally am able to watch conference on TV via BYUTV these days. Edit: PS - And, of course, obviously allowing those majoring in these types of communications to have practice and to learn how to do this type of work.

This is something that has gathered steam over the past few years. I don't talk about it much (and really don't have a desire to) but as a Vet, I always felt we actually WON Vietnam. It was one area which conservatives also agreed with many of the older military as well. It was the Far Left that pushed the idea that we "lost" Vietnam. The US has never lost a war. I really dislike that this entire idea that we lost Vietnam somehow has come around. The Goal of the United States in Vietnam was not to destroy Vietnam. It was not to rule Vietnam. It was to prevent Communism from dominating South East Asia. We largely succeeded in this Goal. Unfortunately, Vietnam itself and Laos both became completely communist, and dominated by Communism, but the fears of it spreading to places like the Phillipines (though it is still a threat there) and other locations did not occur. People do not realize the effect that we had in making sure that did NOT happen. In that way, the US was HIGHLY successful in it's war with Vietnam, and halted the spread of Communism effectively. I suppose it depends on how you see victory vs. loss. Many Americans felt we were there to rule over Vietnam, but if we were, we went about that war in the wrong way and with the wrong method. We weren't there to rule, but to prevent. It was a proxy war in a way for control of the larger region of Asia. It is a war that we won as we not only retained control of the sections of Asia we already influenced, but built upon that with a stronger hold for the most part. When Veterans came back from Vietnam the Hippies and far Left spat on them, called them names, and told them that they were losers even tried to claim that Vietnam was a loss. It was hurtful then, it is hurtful now. The Conservatives didn't do that, nor did the independents. I'm not angry at you, it's not your fault. I am sad though, because if someone like you (who I think is pretty far right and pretty conservative) is now echoing this idea that Vietnam was lost, it shows how far widespread the far left's influence from back then has gone, and how some ideas that were from the far left are now also part of the conservative thought process. It makes me angry at that sort of success (so not an individual, but the ideology's spread). It was before your time though (if I understand your age) when all that occurred, but the anger and hurt probably still goes on for many. For a short time (after 9-11) the nation was united and Veterans felt welcome finally, but as with all good things in the mortal realm, it too probably is finally passing.

NYTimes Russian influence reached 126 million through facebook alone Facebook says Russia still biggest disinformation Player (2021) From the lower article I think it depends on which social media platform you are using. It also shows the trends of the voters. Russia targets Facebook which composes a lot of the older voters (and no surprise, they vote similar to how Russia tries to influence them). On the otherhand, places like Reddit, TikTok, Discord, instagram are more places China tries to infiltrate, and no surprise, the younger audiences from there tend to sway more in the direction China wishes them to. In regards to why Russia would be wanting Trump in office now...it DEPENDS on how reliable John Bolton is and if Bolton is reliable, if Trump would still do the same thing he was planning to do... Bolton says Trump Might have pulled us out of Nato if he had been reelected John Bolton Putin was waiting for possible US withdrawal from NATO The top article is the Washington Post article quoted by the bottom article

Hmm, only conjecture here on my part. With Adam, if he had died and been ressurected somehow, or lived forever, he would have had no way to be cleansed from his sins. This would lead to eternal separation (damnation) from our Father. This would be a very bitter pill to take. With the Savior, and the sacrifice and atonement, we also can live forever. The difference is that because of his atonement, we can be cleansed from our sins. This means that we do not need to be separated from our Father if we so choose. The reason the Savior did this was his love for each and everyone of us. Because of this love, each and everyone will be resurrected and receive a resurrected body. Because of this love, we can live in the Kingdom of Heaven in one of the three glories. This is not a bitter fruit, but perhaps the sweetest and most delightful fruit that we could be offered. They both are the Tree of Life. Both offer eternal life of a sort, but only ONE (Love) offers salvation with possible exaltation. Thus, from one aspect, Life is bitter if eaten, while on the other, it is extremely desireable.

Related, but not connected. I remember when I was young I got letters addressing me as young Master "(my actual name)". Many young men were called Master "so and so" as a name. It indicated that one was still under the age of majority. I think someone with a Master's In English Literature would have realized that terminology (it isn't used as much today, but was used regularly up until at least the mid-20th century). Or maybe they did and wanted to feel a LOT younger than they actually were?

I'm not sure that's a horrifying thing or not. What it indicates is what I think many have suspected all along. Biden is actually a VERY middle of the road moderate. If you look at some of the choices he made for various posts...they are NOT middle of the road moderates. Biden has a loud voice, but the presidency is currently being run by committee. It has been for a while. (probably from the very beginning even). This is actually a pretty good thing though. The BEST leaders in many instances are not the solo voices in the room. They recognize that they have weaknesses and surround themselves with those who are smarter, cannier, and more political saavy than they are. Biden is still witty and fast on his feet, but if you notice some of the ways his policies have been made and done...he has some pretty sharp people in his council. Biden probably doesn't even realize all that they've done in his name at this point. Last guy that ran the nation like this was Reagan and that was some while ago. I'm wondering if they'll keep Harris as his VP choice this next election though. It's getting closer to a point where Biden could collapse and if that happens they'll want someone that will play nice with the committee.

Why is this a Liberals vs. Conservative thing? Conservative isn't a religion (or isn't supposed to be). Also, counting independents as "Liberals" seems rather...disgenius. It appears the number of actual Liberals in the United States is around 25% (2021). 37% are moderate and 36% Conservative (2021). Political ideology steady When you see your political ideology as being the same as your religion...I think something may be wrong. The REASON MLK worked in some ways was because he tried to be a Uniter (or at least, that was how it was Perceived by many) rather than a divider. Whether you were Black or White, Conservative or Liberal, the idea was that all could be united as equals. The other side of fighting for equality could be seen as those who followed the Malcom X path where violence and division were the key. You were either part of them or against them. The Church doesn't care whether you are liberal or conservative. It doesn't care what race you are or whether you are disabled or not. What is important is whether we follow our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and adhere to the principles that he taught. In that light, It is a matter more of what we believe and how we feel about things. ON Disney, I do not like the way Disney is going today. I know some who are MUCH MORE conservative than I who still love Disney completely. They watch the new Disney shows, they really like their Disney Channel and Disney+, and are much bigger fans of Disney than most that I know. It is not necessarily a conservative vs. liberal thing here. If it were, you would think Disney would appeal to me FAR more than those I know who are massive Disney fans and yet are very far to the right (currently, many of those that I refer to in this paragraph also love Trump...so when that ship sails we will see if they are still conservatives or not). I think you shouldn't try to kill your allies on something simply because you don't like how they may think on something completely unrelated or different. In this area, both Liberals and Conservatives of certain morals and ideas can be united without trying to say it is the other's fault. PS: On another item you mentioned, Beer. I don't drink Beer. Assuming all those who drank Bud Lite constituted ALL American audiences is probably not the right way to go about it. I don't know the demographics of who all drank Bud Lite to begin with, or how many were conservative or liberal or moderates, but just because they didn't lose 50% of their sales doesn't really say how many were of each group or how much it has effected others. PPS: However, that said, if you take out the Conservative/Liberal ideas of your post, I think you have some good points. It takes more of a unity of people in specific locations (such as what was organized via MLK) as well as Political allies (something MLK's movement got) to have a really good success at times.

When you say Covid Idiocy, are you referring to quarantines and isolation as well as masking policies? Things supported by the Apostles and even the Prophet? What exactly are you referring to? Historically, these measures HAVE helped save lives (though those who haven't read history REALLY tried to repeat it before we had vaccines or other measures to help against COVID-19) during outbreaks of disease or plague. I think our prophet understood this both as a Prophet AND as a Doctor. I think he also understood that where ever a group of Saints gather (whether it is in a family or a ward) it can be considered a gathering of Saints as per the Scriptures, and that from these we can gather strength. In this we also were prepared with a program which could be utilized individually, as families, or as wards (Come Follow Me). It is probable that the ailments and diseases put upon us in these Latter-days are products of the Adversary meant to hinder the work of the Lord, but I think that the work of the Lord will progress regardless. Did Covid-19 make complications for us? Absolutely! However, the servants of the Lord had ways which still helped us progress (broadcasts of Sacrament meetings, the Come Follow Me program, etc). In the end I feel they felt that LIVES and SAVING physical lives were important things to do. I heard MANY that put down the Prophet and some of the apostles for trying to ensure the health and welfare of the Saints at that time, and it does not amuse me. I do not know what you meant by what you stated, but there are things that come to mind simply because there are those that say the Church is important and needful, and then in the same breath try to destroy the leaders of the Church and their policies due to the actions taken during Covid-19 to save lives and preserve health. I feel you must be talking about some other item regarding COVID-19 (perhaps those who spoke against the prophet and insisted that murder, bloodshed, and killing their fellow saints were acceptable "sacrifices" so that they could meet and infect others ...perhaps that's the idiocy that you are referring to, though I'm not sure how that relates to the importance of Saints meeting each week in that light) and idiocy...but I do not know what exactly you mean. Hopefully you will explain what you meant by Covid Idiocy (in a fashion that speaks HIGHLY of the Prophet and the Apostles and the actions they took to help use overcome as well as preserve those vulnerable among us at that time. Perhaps you could also be referring to how the Prophet wore a mask not only as protection, but as an example to us and also got vaccinated to show us what we should be doing as we care for ourselves and our fellow men as the wise choice, and those who were trying to tell us to do the opposite of what the Prophet was showing and telling us to do as being the idiots?).

As someone around that age myself (well, somewhere in that range perhaps, maybe NOT quite his age yet...thankfully) I can understand a momentary lapse in thought. He walks as someone of his age as well. I think McConnell has also had some of this recently affecting him. It comes with the territory. If someone thinks that it means I can no longer work at the university or do research...I'll just say they are wrong. I may be getting older but I'm not dead yet.

That is a good question. In Judaism today, there are many different ideas of what may happen after this life. Not all of them even believe in a life after this one. It really depends on the sect of Judaism that you follow. As @zil2 mentioned, we believe that the prophets had knowledge of the plan of salvation, even in the time of the Old Testament. They were aware of the vital role that Jesus Christ would play in the Salvation and Exaltation of Mankind. This is why they prophesied of a Savior. It was more than just a prophecy concerning a Phyiscal Savior for the Jews from Slavery or difficulty (though it was often used as a parallel), and it was more than just a King. They KNEW of the atonement. With something that important. why would the Lord hide such a thing? When we read the New Testament it sometimes comes across that the Lord ALSO felt that others should know this. It seems sometimes he would point things out and seem almost annoyed when those in power didn't seem to acknowledge it or how he was fulfilling such prophesies. The bigger question about this particular chapter (6) I think would be how Nephi (and this isn't just Nephi, it occurs throughout the Book of Mormon) seems to be addressing men in general and mankind in general. Rather than simply focusing on the Children of Israel, at times it seems to be applying words that are far broader in relation than simply those who were the Chosen people of the Lord (at the time of it's writing). Chapter 6 also seems to be something of a thought that Nephi has in relation to what the preceding writing had him involved with. He and his brothers just had gone and gotten their family records which contain their genealogy as well as the gospel. It is an interesting parallel between the verses you write on and the end of Chapter 5 where his father is directing his thoughts that the records would be found among those who were the Children of Lehi in the future (5:18). It may be then that they are doing something which we read about in the Old Testament. In the Old Testament when they talk about something it normally is directed at the Children of Israel or those who are descendants of Jacob (and thus also Abraham and Issac). Though these commandments and the things they teach are directed towards them, it is also (in our modern Christian understanding) also directed to us and all Christians. Thus, the Old Testament and what it contains still applies to us (in the areas which were not fulfilled and hence no longer need to be done in our worship such as blood sacrifice) even though it is the New Testament where the Gentiles are explicitly encompassed as worshipers of our Lord. The General Language it sometimes has that seems to apply to all (though the Judaic interpretation would have been strictly to those who were of the House of Jacob) really DOES apply to all in those situations, similar to how it applies to those in the Old Testament. Turning this back into the idea of Saving and salvation then we look through the Old Testament. In it, many of the first times we read about it is concerning saving them from Physical foes or right before they fight enemies (such as David fighting the Philistines) and the claim that they shall be saved. Reading some of these more in a Christian Context though can reveal that men such as David understood the idea of a Savior and being Saved. Ex. Psalm 34:17-22 - 17 The righteous cry, and the Lord heareth, and delivereth them out of all their troubles. 18 The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit. 19 Many are the afflictions of the righteous: but the Lord delivereth him out of them all. 20 He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken. 21 Evil shall slay the wicked: and they that hate the righteous shall be desolate. 22 The Lord redeemeth the soul of his servants: and none of them that trust in him shall be desolate. Psalm 69 is also a great example of a Messianic Psalm. Various other places (such as Isaiah and Jeremiah) have meanings which read from a messianic view relate to this idea of being saved. In the same way, Nephi and his brethren have just been saved themselves. They were saved from the clutches of King Laban and his servants which had pursued them to kill them, as well as saved in being able to accomplish their quest against such impossible odds. Just like how David's writings and prayers of being saved when against the philistines or against Saul or other impossible odds would have been seen by the Israelites and later the Jews as the Lord saving him from his enemies, they would have also viewed Nephi's statement. However, from an elevated view of Christianity and how we can have a broader understanding of David's statements and Psalms, we understand that it also is discussing salvation in the spiritual sense. In this way, those who ALSO knew about the coming Lord and his true mission (the atonement of all men) could understand that David was talking about a Messiah that would save us in the afterlife as well as this life, they would probably also understand that Nephi is also discussing this (though with Nephi it is a tad more direct since we are already reading it in that fashion).

I think it was something different than a fruit we know, but if I had to guess a fruit I would probably guess something more like dates. Maybe he had heavily (and I mean so heavy that they are white) sugared (though getting the right type of sugar I'm thinking of in his time may not be a feasible thought) Dates.

I always enjoy reading the Book of Mormon. I can restart from where I'm at and join in on the group.

If I believed as some do regarding the Trinity, and that The all seeing Deity was Omnipresent as well as all powerful and someone asked me out of the blue what I thought he was like... Saying that he is a Gas is probably as apt a description as anything else. You have an omnipresent being that is everywhere and everyplace, outside of you, inside of you, beyond your line of sight...etc. Obviously it's not empty space...so how would you describe such a thing? Something that is there, invisible to your eyes, but still present and takes up space, can be everywhere and in everything and beyond everything... It's not the worst description I've heard in regards to trying to give a physical description to deity. Of course, as has been stated already, we believe in Deity with a physical form and body...but if one did not...it could get interesting on the various ways they may describe him.

It depends on what they were and how. Wounds by suicide haven't been addressed really, nor were piercings. The indications I got were that these types of things would be healed most likely. On the otherhand, Tattoos WERE highly discouraged. I believe that Joseph Fielding Smith had a nebulous quote that is sometimes used that some use to imply that tattoos and other imperfections may remain when resurrected, but that same quote also states that these will, in their due time, be healed and we will actually have perfected bodies in the Resurrection. If only reading part of it, the implication may be found, but the whole statement actually seems to state the exact opposite. President Kimball also has a statement that has been used where he states that non-self inflicted wounds and injuries will be healed. The implication here is that it may be that self-inflicted things might remain in the eternities. I do not think he had in mind for one second that this would extend to transgendered individuals changing their Sex, but it could be used by such individuals to say that such changes that they make are thus ordained and will remain with them through the eternities because they made the decision to change it themselves and thus it is "self-inflicted." This also leaves a very large grey area regarding those who had or got these things and then repented of such things. Another common idea was that as we have the same bodies (or in theory) when we are resurrected, many of the same scars or injuries may remain upon us for a time, but the resurrected body, being perfected, will eventually heal and all these things will be removed so that we have perfect bodies through the eternities. A quick look on current guidance on Tattoos discovered these items (a quick search on google). Tattooing And a Talk from David A. Burton who looked to be a Stake President from around 20 years ago but found on the Church Site Is there anything wrong with getting a tattoo or body piercing From an article linked to the Tattoo page on the Church's site.

I enjoy Krispy Kremes a little too much. They are probably my favorite donut. Dunkin Donuts are ones that I can find all over the world though. The best donuts are the ones from local home town donut shops though.

One of the entities in the world that probably knows the scriptures the best is probably the Adversary. He has his servants just like the Lord has his. Many are probably unwitting servants of the adversary but they are well trained. I THINK (so, this is just my thinking) that many of the things that afflict our brothers and sister at times in the LGBTQ community occur because they give into their indulgences of certain things. They, of course, do not see it as an affliction, but as being able to be themselves. We all have temptation in life. Some of those deal with lusts of various kinds. By keeping ourselves within the confines of that the Lord sets we resist falling into making these things focal points for our lives. However, in many of these groups, when they fall into these temptations they make it large part of their identity. They are now told it is okay to let these things become a focal point of their lives. It's not just LGBTQ individuals though. Among the university students, immorality and disregarding the Law of Chastity is prevalent. Many of these students are religious and claim to be Christian, but they find ways to support their immoral behavior via their various religions by how they interpret things and how they justify it by their interpretations of doctrine. I find it heartbreaking, but it is beyond my purview as professor to do much or anything regarding it, or even saying anything to them about it. We live in a time of great immorality and wickedness among the people of the Western (and Northern) Hemispheres today. I absolutely agree the adversary has flipped the script in many ways. What is good is evil and what is evil is good in today's society in many ways. Great quotes by the way. I love using Doctrines of Salvation in my reading (among other books).

Edit: This is the same pathway which they will use these facts in their arguments, and why it becomes difficult to actually answer the question without falling into other traps where they can argue against the idea of two sexes or genders. As I said, it's a TRICK question. If someone is asking about this in regards to Transgendered indivduals or LGBT you need to understand WHY and WHERE they are coming from. In this instance, they are using the argument that there has always been gender (which is true). That Gender is a social construct that is utilized in labeling things or identifying things regarding that gendered use (also true). By simply saying...nah, uh, nani-nani-boo-boo, you are wrong and there are only two...doesn't do anything to effect their argument. They have stated some true items and you've fallen into their trap. By trying to say that the facts they use as their reasoning are wrong or false, it simply looks to invalidate your own argument before it even began. They have facts on their side when they state these things. The point isn't to refute the truth that they have backing them, it is to find the flaw in their arguments, or alternatively, not fall into the trap in the first place. I see this was the problem when the Gay Marriage came up on the Federal level as well. The argument the LGBT were making was that Married people got more rights simply from being married than anyone else did. They felt it was unfair that some people got different rights than others and that those rights should be broadened out to include other groups (such as gay individuals who chose to identify their relationship as a marriage). That by giving one group more rights than others it was inherently unfair, unjust, and promoted inequality. Instead of figuring out a reasoning towards the path that equal rights would or could be extended and yet retain the holiness or sanctity of what we now call a traditional marriage, arguments took a turn that had NOTHING to really do with the actual context or item that the LGBT groups were arguing. At best it tried to justify giving more rights to some and less rights to others, at worst it simply ignored the argument and tried to make a new one regarding it being just a natural state vs. and unnatural state. Ignoring the actual argument did nothing to help win the case and Gay Marriage is now the law of the land. In the same way, we now have a question regarding how many genders (or sexes) are supported in the Bible. More directly, Biblical support for more than two genders in the Bible. This is actually an argument that has been brought up by LGBT specifically BECAUSE no matter how you look at it, the Bible supports more than one gender by most languages it was translated from, and sexes in what it actually defines and talks about. If you go this route, you CANNOT win the argument in this fashion by simply saying it only talks about two sexes in Genesis. Anyone who has a background of study in the language and intricacies of the Bible will instantly realize that this is a trap. It's a trick and if you follow their line of reasoning, you WILL not win the argument. It's unwinnable by the facts of the case as presented. AT least as far as I can see it. If you think the people asking things or presenting things like this are ignorant you are only fooling yourself. Many of these are actually well read and well educated in many areas of classical literature, biblical studies, and religious studies. For LGBT who are using this in regards to religious discussions (it is not just the Bible, if you go through Catholic History or other historical contexts they have many other questions that are basically "trick" questions) they have a goal and that goal is to tear down religion. If you don't know the facts in detail (even as a professor and knowledgeable about certain things regarding the background and origins is not enough for many of them) in these types of instances, it is better to try a different approach. If you say there are only two...they have enough facts that they can bore you for DAYS on the various aspects that prove you wrong from either your Bible or from religious history. These facts are not wrong, but they MAY be applied in a flawed manner (as you so notate in your post). They will hit you with a preponderance of evidence. You will not win this in this manner. I am saying this as someone who has at least some understanding of the language, the support in the Bible for these things (as well as in classical literature and in history itself), and why they use this argument to support their own statements in regards to why their take on Transgendered individuals, Homosexual activity, and Homosexual actions are justified in Christian Religions. This is a trick question and one that is probably not going to go the way you want it to when confronted by individuals who feel that they are justified in LGBTQ acts by the Bible and by religion. Instead, if you are going to post there are only two genders or sexes, try a more faith based option. Use the proclamation for the family then and when asked how it proves such, admit that it is based upon faith and belief on modern day revelation and the right of the General Authorities to receive such revelation. They can then say all sorts of facts to try to disprove you, but they cannot tell you that you cannot believe or have faith in the way you do. You have something to back you up and it is then upon them to try to show or prove why this faith or belief is misplaced (and trust me, they will try...). Bear you Testimony. This may not have any better chance of convincing them (unless somehow they can feel the spirit and it can turn their heart, which is a better chance then the alternative) but it can help bolster your own faith in light of their arguments. If they get overly aggressive, leave the conversation. It can only get nasty and mean if you continue to try to press the issue and they will not let you have your faith or feel the spirit in their heart. I have the unfortunate experience to have this occur with multiple young individuals in the university system and can say that bearing your testimony and utilizing your faith and belief in the prophets and modern revelation is a MUCH more solid foundation to build upon than trying to argue the facts with them.

What I'm about to say will probably be an unpopular opinion here (what's new). In truth, if one focused solely on their college degree they probably could finish most of them in two or three years. The question is if that is the purpose of college or a university. There are those that say yes...it is. For some degrees it is probable that you could get away with this idea (Engineering, Nursing, etc). However, that ignores the majority of degrees out there. Why do those degrees even exist? Let's take Law or a Law degree. In theory, you could ignore the undergraduate and simply let them go to Law School. If this is so, then why not do this. Why is it that Law Schools in the United States generally require an undergraduate degree? There is an idea of well rounded education, or of a well rounded individual. Education from a University has traditionally (looking at education from the viewpoint of the past several centuries) not been something for the everyday individual. They everyday individual went into trades (such as carpentry, smithy, cobbling, etc). They had their own system of advancement and training that was DIFFERENT than the University system. Those who went to the University went to learn in general. They went to learn about the world and about how it worked. Because it took money, and sometimes was seen as not all that useful in life (as opposed to trades) it leaned more heavily on those who had money and time to spend. In the more recent past (as in the past 200 years, and still evolving) those who went and got a university education were seen as different. Universities were not simply teaching a subject, but teaching the individual HOW to learn and HOW to adapt. Those who could actually LEARN this skill and graduate were seen as superior in how they could learn to adapt to different situations, learn to improve things, and were better able to be managers and handle the varies situations over that of what tradesmen could do. It is THIS skill that was sought after by many companies and groups during the mid-20th and late 20th centuries. This is why someone with an Art Degree in the 80s may be able to become the district manager of a grocery chain, and advance even higher. This is why someone with a Music degree could sign on with Oracle and become a VP in the 90s. They weren't trained specifically in Business, but it was the training of their minds. Furthermore, by giving them a sampling of different venues of life (English, History, Sciences, etc) the universities were creating a more well rounded individual. Someone who could know a little bit of many things, though only practicing becoming an expert (eventually, if they went for graduate studies) in one thing. It slowly (it was not always so) became that THESE individuals were seen as more desirable than others. Medical Schools, Law Schools, and then even Law degrees got vectored to where they were looking for these specific types of people. Those who excelled in the university environment, but who also were well rounded in many different areas. Which would you rather have as a criminal defense lawyer in a trespassing case in a city stadium Chicago. Someone who only studied law...or Someone who studied law but also understood a little bit about the history of Chicago, the situation of the politics and ethnic groups there, and had a little background sports and stadiums themselves when they were younger and played sports? Which do you prefer? Today, undergraduate classes have an added boon. Many of the young people coming do not have a clear picture of WHAT they want to major in. Different classes can give them a taste of what each major may have to offer. It gives them time to decide what they want to do as they take their generals. It also adds to their understanding in how different things may interact (for example, take a History of Civilization class with a focus on science and you can see how the two interact quite intricately throughout human civilization). I think if one wants to focus on one subject entirely there are still the trades out there (and some of them pay quite handsomely. I know a plumber and an electrician that earn FAR more than I do. They are experts at what they do and are very skilled). There is also graduate school. If they feel so inclined to go to another nation and apply to their programs they can do that. However, I think the value of the US educational system is extremely good IF you spend wisely and act wisely in how you choose what you study.