person0

I haven't actually watched yet (except like 3 seconds of the family sitting around a fire), but I think there is an easy fix to that. They need to follow the same formula as the Bible videos, as in, only use the actual text of from the scriptures, with almost no filler. I think the best way to accomplish this would be to have narrators representing the various authors, then to use only the minimal amount of filler text necessary to appropriately depict the scenes. By limiting the the text to exactly what is written, as a study tool, I believe it becomes much more powerful.

I think that's part of the problem, though; if we make Bible videos to a better quality than Book of Mormon videos, then what kind of message does that portray to the public?

I'm sure you are right about that as it pertains to the general membership of the Church. Admittedly, I have been one of the more vocal in this thread arguing against the change, however, I do not base it on my political views. My political views certainly favor private gun ownership, and like @NeuroTypical, I am uneasy because of the realities of gun free zones. However, I find myself mostly confused because of my understanding of the Doctrines of the Restored Gospel, and the words of Christ where He directly sustains the constitution of the United States and indicates that He established it. The constitution includes the 'right to bear arms', and that it 'shall not be infringed'. 'Bear', meaning to carry or to be equipped. 'Shall not', as in nearly identical verbiage to the Lord's when dictating/inscribing the 10 commandments. Too many people argue about the reasoning behind why the right to bear arms exists, but the reasoning is ultimately irrelevant. The Lord prohibits His Latter-Day Saints from consuming alcohol, there are two reasons for this given in D&C 89 (conspiring men and the weakness of some saints). Ultimately, those reasons are irrelevant, because the Lord Himself forbids it. Likewise, the reason that every American's 'right to bear arms shall not be infringed' is irrelevant, because the whole point is, that in order to be certain that reason is 100% fulfilled, the right must not be infringed. So, my quandary is this, if the Lord Himself established our constitution, why then is a policy being implemented that conflicts with with the rights and principles established in the constitution? If it is my God given right to carry a weapon, why would the Church specifically and intentionally infringe upon a right which they teach to have been established by God? I await the upcoming General Conference because, as we have seen recently, many decisions have been enacted and then followed up with an official announcement declaring the change to be directed by revelation. I suppose we'll see.

What is the exact line where one should be deemed mentally unstable? Who makes that determination? Can such a designation be appealed and/or rescinded and what would be necessary to do so, and how long would it take?

This articles analysis is inaccurate. The article suggests that there are approximately 250 attackers shot each year by a 'good guy with a gun' and approximately 500 accidental deaths each year from a gun. He then goes on to argue that point and throw in a few other numbers to try and make it sound like what he is saying is valid and reasonable. However, the writer himself destroys hi entire argument with this one statement: The author openly admits that he does not have enough evidence to support his claims. The primary argument from the second article is shown from this statement which is repeated throughout: So, once you remove that which is irrelevant (suicide and illegal use of a weapon), then you are left with a similar statistic to the one from the first article, essentially, 4 unintentional shootings to 1 self defense use. The author, however, does not define 'use'; I would assume use means a pull of the trigger as that would most match the first article, and also because, as the author from the first article admits, it is impossible to estimate the protective effect of the defensive use of a firearm that does not result in a shot being fired. I would further argue, the defensive use where a shot is fired but where the target is missed is also not measured. Just because someone misses their target does not mean that use of a firearm for defense was unsuccessful; an attacker may still flee if a shot is fired and missed; neither article addresses any data that may be available related to this.

Excellent question. I believe that is an abuse of power for you to be required to get yearly approval to travel using your motorized vehicle; I don't think the government should have the authority to require it until after there is evidence of your personal capacity limitations specifically as it pertains to driving; I feel similarly about weapons ownership. Even if I didn't believe that, the possession of a deadly weapon is different than the use of a deadly weapon, you are not impeded from owning a vehicle, only from using it on public roads; I think it would be reasonable for ones's weapons use to be limited as it pertains to employment as a public or private security guard (or similar), but private ownership does not inherently indicate that the weapon would ever be used. Some wealthy people own unused sports vehicles, no one will take those vehicles away just because they don't have a license to drive them. Until there is evidence of abuse of a right, I don't think that right should be impeded; otherwise, we are just playing 'minority report', but with even less data.

I disagree that we don't have the right to drive. I would argue that we have the natural right to travel/movement by use of whatever means is common to the day. The fact that the government has usurped that right and taught us it is a privilege is a sad truth. The problem with @Traveler's example is that it is already customary that those who misuse their natural right in a way that would infringe upon the rights of others are then themselves subject to have that right infringed upon. Someone who abuses substances to a mind altering state, does not have to then drive a vehicle; it is the driving under the influence in the public arena that is the problem which infringes upon the right to life of others People with substance abuse problems may be imprisoned, but their right to travel is not altered unless they actually drive under the influence. Likewise, someone who uses a deadly weapon under the influence in a way that infringes upon the rights of others should equally be subject to removal of that right (and they already are, and in many cases the influence of illicit substances is not even required to be a factor, however it is reasonable to assume that said individual may not have made such an improper decision had they not been under the influence). Interesting court decisions establishing the right to drive: To defend your point, Thompson V Smith also established that the right to travel is not the same as the right to drive, however, given that modern interstate highways prohibit pedestrian travel when not using an automobile, I would argue that the individual right to travel is therefore impeded, and this decision needs to be revisited. Interestingly, there is no federal law regulating travel and/or the use of a motor vehicle requiring a permit; all such laws originate at the state level. I am very curious to see how the right to travel will play out when individuals no longer have to actually operate the vehicle because it is driven by AI. One already has the right to un-infringed travel in all 50 states so long as the permits are obtained by the 'operator' of the mode of transportation has the correct permits (i.e. I can ride in the car all day long without a license if my wife is driving). If an AI is driving, the producer of the AI should require the 'privilege' not me, eh?

I just double checked and can confirm that I have five active gmail accounts. I use one as my main account, one as my job search & interview account, one as my spam account, one as my app developer account, and one as my person0 account in case I decide to use the moinker for something else down the line.

Nephi claims that his record was written in his own hand; Mormon did not summarize it. Likewise, Jacob wrote in his own hand, as did all the authors in the Book of Mormon through Omni. Then, both Mormon and Moroni wrote their own records. If they are making up stories about themselves, then I would suggest that is problematic. That doesn't mean that one should expect their record to be flawless. I'm certain that the literal (Ha!) dialogue between Jacob and Sherem could have been adapted, abridged, or unintentionally altered by Jacob as he remembered his conversation. To suggest that those accounts are not literal histories would indicate deception; it is not the same to suggest that biblical accounts of the creation may be figurative, as to suggest that the things Nephi said about himself could be figurative.

I'm fairly certain that a lot of us believe that, not just mirkwood.

By definition it is not ok, as in it is not right, approved, endorsed, or authorized. It does matter if one desires to believe the Truth. Some people believe that the story of Job was not a real history, but the D&C indicates that Job was a real man. Likewise, D&C mentions Nephi, and Joseph Smith was visited in person by Moroni. If these are just stories, then that becomes very problematic to the religion and world view of Latter-Day Saints.

Is it okay to use the word 'literal' in a figurative way? (Given the thread title, I find it comical that this question is somewhat off topic 😁)

Not counting the many, many games I attend to watch my children, I've been to 4 professional and/or college sporting events over the past 4 years. I could enjoy a few more, but there's no time for it right now. I enjoy the competitive nature of sports, but I don't follow it enough to even know player's names. I already know most people ignore Kapernick, I just thought it was a funny way to respond. I don't think there's anything inherently negative about enjoying sports as a hobby, or most other hobbies, however, I think as a society, in general, most people 'waste' too much of their time, sports or otherwise. Personally, I place much higher value on playing and practicing sports than on watching them solely as a spectator, which is why I love getting my children involved in sports. That said, I think different people will have different views about what is too much time. What do you consider to be the right amount of time, vs too much? In my mind, I tend to think of things from an opportunity cost perspective; what could that individual have been doing? Someone who watches 2 hours of TV per day will have spent 1 waking year of their life watching TV, roughly every 8 years. That said, I'm not sure I would call 2 hours of TV / day overkill (I know I watch that much at times), but it is still time wasted if you consider other things they could have been doing to develop their mind, body and/or talents. Sometimes watching sports and other entertainment is a bonding experience for which there is no higher opportunity. When I go to my kids games and cheer them on, there is nothing better I could possibly be doing with my time than showing them how much I love and support them. In general, things that involve useful learning (personal education) score highest on my hypothetical time/value chart, where private entertainment (i.e. not as a bonding experience with friends/family) scores lowest.

I would be able to live on 50% without forgoing what I consider to be the niceties. That said, I don't like foreign vacations, and most of my hobbies are relatively inexpensive.

All things considered, the 1% is why the Word of Wisdom forbids alcohol. Although I'm not a huge sports enthusiast, I think sports can be a valuable tool to develop work ethic, and can be an enjoyable family experience. 6/7 of my children are involved in a sporting activity or team on a regular basis. That said, I don't know very many college & pro sports fans who I would think devote the right amount of time to it; however, just like how most people are bad with their money, most people are bad with their time too.

My wife sent this meme to me this morning. She said it is going around in some circles, so I suppose so.

It certainly is a small and simple action, but it's the logical and emotional aspect that make it much more than the action itself. I am upset about it and frustrated by it (in case you couldn't tell 😁), and if at some point my opinion is polled, I believe I'd vote in favor of repealing the change. Until then I still intend to obey 100%. Have they really, with this gun issue? (sincere question, other than this forum, I don't participate in social media) I know! The thing that bother's me most is that this change is the first time I have been truly upset and concerned about an action the Church has taken. That said, my initial private reaction to my wife (even as I was blasting the decision in this forum) was to suggest that now all us conservatives can at least more thoroughly empathize with those who have been disaffected for reasons that we would think are ridiculous. I'm just grateful that my testimony is stronger than a potentially inappropriate policy decision (emphasis on potentially). That would be really sad! I mean, I'm sincerely concerned for the safety of my family, but hey, if I die, I have paradise and the celestial kingdom to look forward to, so 🤷‍♂️

I was thinking about this on Sunday. I noticed that there was no announcement in our ward. I assume most people outside of Texas who carry concealed will continue because, without an announcement, they will be oblivious.

Even for the norm, I think that estimate depends on what someone considers to be decent retirement. I am not the norm, but once I no longer have to save for retirement, no longer have a mortgage, and am no longer raising 7 children, I could retire exactly as I live today on no more than 50% of my current income (inflation adjusted). I'm happy to say that I plan to retire early 🙂

Sounds like you now have an excellent excuse to throw a party, invite the 'other half', and get to know them!

You don't have to. It depends on how important you think it is for them to stay alive.

You can also copy and paste the image directly into a Third Hour Forum post, no saving required.

Count me as #2 of 5! Although, I actually have an account, one just wont find any posts. Regardless, this is a problematic sign for society at large. Consider how many moderators have potentially been given the opportunity to review the banned link, and yet have intentionally passed upon the opportunity to reverse the block.