person0

I struggle to understand how a Christian can study the Book of Mormon in depth and come away from it without reaching one of two conclusions:
1)  It is the Word of God as is the Bible
2)  It is not the Word of God, but if not, the Bible must not be either
I tend to automatically assume that one who reads the Book of Mormon and doesn't believe it to be true could not have fulfilled Moroni's promise, or they cast out the witness they received.  It is a very direct promise: ". . .he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost."  On a separate but related note: If I were to ever leave the Church, the only other option is atheism / agnosticism.  It just seems too obvious to me that other religions are just as (if not more) flawed as detractors claim ours to be.

I struggle to understand how a Christian can study the Book of Mormon in depth and come away from it without reaching one of two conclusions:
1)  It is the Word of God as is the Bible
2)  It is not the Word of God, but if not, the Bible must not be either
I tend to automatically assume that one who reads the Book of Mormon and doesn't believe it to be true could not have fulfilled Moroni's promise, or they cast out the witness they received.  It is a very direct promise: ". . .he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost."  On a separate but related note: If I were to ever leave the Church, the only other option is atheism / agnosticism.  It just seems too obvious to me that other religions are just as (if not more) flawed as detractors claim ours to be.

The mothers of the Army of Helaman volunteered their young sons.   They killed lots of people. God even helped them do it!  😁

I think you are assuming the civil suits will be successful and also assuming he will not succeed in lawsuits against major media outlets who maliciously defamed him.  If Nick Sandman was able to settle for millions, I'm sure we can assume Kyle will be able to do the same, if not more, given the more egregious level of defamation and the impact to livelihood of being falsely labeled a murderous white supremacist.

I am less concerned about his safety and financial stability and more concerned about what he will choose to do with his life and if he will strive to become a better man.  He showed enormous restraint in deciding when to use and when not to use his weapon; given how young he still is I hope his acquittal doesn't go to his head and lead him to change for the worse.

I think you are assuming the civil suits will be successful and also assuming he will not succeed in lawsuits against major media outlets who maliciously defamed him.  If Nick Sandman was able to settle for millions, I'm sure we can assume Kyle will be able to do the same, if not more, given the more egregious level of defamation and the impact to livelihood of being falsely labeled a murderous white supremacist.

I am less concerned about his safety and financial stability and more concerned about what he will choose to do with his life and if he will strive to become a better man.  He showed enormous restraint in deciding when to use and when not to use his weapon; given how young he still is I hope his acquittal doesn't go to his head and lead him to change for the worse.

I think you are assuming the civil suits will be successful and also assuming he will not succeed in lawsuits against major media outlets who maliciously defamed him.  If Nick Sandman was able to settle for millions, I'm sure we can assume Kyle will be able to do the same, if not more, given the more egregious level of defamation and the impact to livelihood of being falsely labeled a murderous white supremacist.

I am less concerned about his safety and financial stability and more concerned about what he will choose to do with his life and if he will strive to become a better man.  He showed enormous restraint in deciding when to use and when not to use his weapon; given how young he still is I hope his acquittal doesn't go to his head and lead him to change for the worse.

As I read through the link I had much the same impression as you.  When the person said that they were not impressed - I drilled down and discovered that they were not impressed with the Book of Mormon as religious literature produced by a 19th century man named Joseph Smith.  Such a statement is akin to not being impressed by the Bible as literature compiled and reconstructed through the influence of a War Lord King from the Dark Ages. 
You are correct in your assessment in part in considering the Book of Mormon through the modern science of textual criticism and applying the same textual analytics with the Bible.  Even the popular DNA criticism towards the Book of Mormon also disproves the Bible.  Especially the Biblical narrative of mankind springing from the singular parents (Adam and Eve) 6,000 years ago as well as the narrative of a global flood around 5 thousands years ago.
The most astonishing claim of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that G-d has restored light and truth of his power and plan for the salvation of all mankind in these "last days" for the singular purpose of preparing a covenant people for the return and 1,000 year reign of his Messiah Son.  For those that are not impressed with the Prophet Joseph Smith Jr. - I would challenge that they speak directly to:
          1. That our era is not at all related to the Last-days
          2.  That Joseph Smith did not produce any religious thought of any difference or importance.
           3. That there is a far better Last-day source of religious thoughts to bring mankind back to Christ.
As far as religions go - if it was not for the restoration - I am impressed with the intelligent light and truths taught in some of the adherents of Buddhism and in some cases Islam.  The adherents of "Traditional" Christianity I find "spiritually" as bankrupted as the Pharisees and Sadducees - having a "form" of G-dlyness but denying the power thereof. 
 
The Traveler

I struggle to understand how a Christian can study the Book of Mormon in depth and come away from it without reaching one of two conclusions:
1)  It is the Word of God as is the Bible
2)  It is not the Word of God, but if not, the Bible must not be either
I tend to automatically assume that one who reads the Book of Mormon and doesn't believe it to be true could not have fulfilled Moroni's promise, or they cast out the witness they received.  It is a very direct promise: ". . .he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost."  On a separate but related note: If I were to ever leave the Church, the only other option is atheism / agnosticism.  It just seems too obvious to me that other religions are just as (if not more) flawed as detractors claim ours to be.

I think you are assuming the civil suits will be successful and also assuming he will not succeed in lawsuits against major media outlets who maliciously defamed him.  If Nick Sandman was able to settle for millions, I'm sure we can assume Kyle will be able to do the same, if not more, given the more egregious level of defamation and the impact to livelihood of being falsely labeled a murderous white supremacist.

I am less concerned about his safety and financial stability and more concerned about what he will choose to do with his life and if he will strive to become a better man.  He showed enormous restraint in deciding when to use and when not to use his weapon; given how young he still is I hope his acquittal doesn't go to his head and lead him to change for the worse.

I struggle to understand how a Christian can study the Book of Mormon in depth and come away from it without reaching one of two conclusions:
1)  It is the Word of God as is the Bible
2)  It is not the Word of God, but if not, the Bible must not be either
I tend to automatically assume that one who reads the Book of Mormon and doesn't believe it to be true could not have fulfilled Moroni's promise, or they cast out the witness they received.  It is a very direct promise: ". . .he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost."  On a separate but related note: If I were to ever leave the Church, the only other option is atheism / agnosticism.  It just seems too obvious to me that other religions are just as (if not more) flawed as detractors claim ours to be.

I think you are assuming the civil suits will be successful and also assuming he will not succeed in lawsuits against major media outlets who maliciously defamed him.  If Nick Sandman was able to settle for millions, I'm sure we can assume Kyle will be able to do the same, if not more, given the more egregious level of defamation and the impact to livelihood of being falsely labeled a murderous white supremacist.

I am less concerned about his safety and financial stability and more concerned about what he will choose to do with his life and if he will strive to become a better man.  He showed enormous restraint in deciding when to use and when not to use his weapon; given how young he still is I hope his acquittal doesn't go to his head and lead him to change for the worse.

I think you are assuming the civil suits will be successful and also assuming he will not succeed in lawsuits against major media outlets who maliciously defamed him.  If Nick Sandman was able to settle for millions, I'm sure we can assume Kyle will be able to do the same, if not more, given the more egregious level of defamation and the impact to livelihood of being falsely labeled a murderous white supremacist.

I am less concerned about his safety and financial stability and more concerned about what he will choose to do with his life and if he will strive to become a better man.  He showed enormous restraint in deciding when to use and when not to use his weapon; given how young he still is I hope his acquittal doesn't go to his head and lead him to change for the worse.

Another side note to go along with @Grunt's:  As it turns out our trusted medical infrastructure (CDC and NIA) and our more trusted political party to manage the pandemic has been hiding statistics regarding being vaccinated.  As it turns out the vaccine is not as efficient as natural immunity when it come to being infected, carrying the virus, infecting others, becoming hospitalized or dying.  And being vaccinated for those in the category of small risk is not as much of a benefit as advertised.   They say it is better but no one is saying how much better.  Dr. Fauci will only say that it is better than 50% are unvaccinated causing the problem.  There is still no data of any problems from those with natural immunity.
The pandemic has made a new class of billionaires, politicians and medical professionals that seem to be more interested in maintaining their new place rather than getting back to normal.  What is even more interesting is that the medical professionals experiencing the greatest benefit and glory were also involved in the research that likely is responsible for causing the pandemic.
 
The Traveler

I think it's really just an individual assessment of risk/benefit.   There is zero reason, given the current data, that I would vaccinate my kids.   Beyond that, I think age, environment, personal beliefs, and health should drive whether or not you get it.   

That’s good to hear 👍

Funny watching people blame this kid for the deaths of violent rioters that assaulted him.

Email that my stake president sent out to all eight wards this evening:
 
Bishops,
I feel impressed to have Brother mirkwood (Stake Self Reliance Specialist) and myself speak in each of your wards. Please schedule us at your earliest convenience. First come first serve.
Thank you.
 
 
 
 

Oh agree. 
 
But, like we all know, we love studies when we agree with the outcome. We dismiss them when we disagree with the outcome, even if the outcome is probably correct. Yes, I include myself. 
 
Again though, this is a very good thing and I hope and pray it’s accurate. 

I agree that I would love to see more studies.  Unless I misread, the article seemed to mention that a non-church entity at least reviewed the data and came to the same assessment.  Obviously not another independent study, but very likely the next best thing.

You and I are begotten of God.  Christ was the only begotten in the flesh.  Christ is both the spiritual and physical offspring of God; everyone else is spiritual offspring only. (As far as has been revealed)

You and I are begotten of God.  Christ was the only begotten in the flesh.  Christ is both the spiritual and physical offspring of God; everyone else is spiritual offspring only. (As far as has been revealed)

I like JP:
 

I think what’s getting lost here is YouTuber isn’t just dealing with dichotomies, even when he only offers 2 choices, instead there’s an unstated hierarchy of wants. My want at level 50 is “don’t sound pretentious” while my lower want at level 75 is “shake it up a little”. Given the rankings I will greet you with “Hello” instead of “Bonjour”. That’s how it’s going to play out. And it will play out like that every time. That being the case, why did I say “Bonjour”? YouTuber says it’s because there’s actually another want at play. At level 38 is “I want to prove YouTuber wrong about free will.” 
 
The problem as you’ve stated is that, although it is sel-consistent, it’s also circular. For addicts, “take a hit” ranks higher than “don’t” but there are addicts who don’t. Therefore they must have a third want that you don’t know about. They want “in tact family” or “steady job” or “stop breaking mom’s heart” or some other want. This philosophy is unfalsifiable. The implication of this model is if we want to change behavior we need to add a new want to the hierarchy in a higher rank, or alter the ranking al an existent want. This then leads to the second issue with this philosophy. (I’ll get there after the following paragraph).
In the Hello/Bonjour example another solution that YouTuber didn’t discuss at all is that maybe there wasn’t a third want - maybe my hierarchy shifted. Every time I say “Hello” my “shake it up” want moves up the hierarchy a notch. Once it’s at 49 I say “Bonjour” and it drops down again. This is something like the infinite prisoners dilemma (there’s a good TedEd video on that) (this is also the problem with the stable marriage algorithm - it only works if everyone’s rankings stay the same).
Whether Bonjour comes from a new rule or a shift in the hierarchy, it highlights the same question: Where does the hierarchy of wants come from? YouTuber is arguing a mechanical-style of free will based on the hierarchy of wants which means (hopefully I’m not presuming too much) this hierarchy falls under the nature/nurture debate but must ultimately be nurture. That is, if it is mechanistic then the current example can come from how a person was raised (outside influences) or genetics (natural influences) but if it’s ultimately mechanistic then the outside influence (culture, counter culture, parents, etc) is the result of meta-evolution and the natural influence is from evolution. Since YouTuber hasn’t expressly made this argument I won’t engage it further, but I’ll leave it here for consideration.
Beyond nature and nurture I can think of two other sources for this hierarchy of wants. How bout God? The challenge here is a theological one @Traveler often raises. If a person sins because of the hierarchy God set, who is ultimately responsible for that sin? Is God just for condemning the man He preset to sin? This lead to the fourth option, that there’s something independent within the individual uncreated by God. @Just_A_Guy wrote previously about “intelligences” and while Latter-day Saints are comfortable with it, it creates a divide when discussing with credal Christians about Creation or God’s relationship to man.

I don't think Mormonism has ever really preoccupied itself with the supposed "sovereignty" of God in quite the way many other Christian denominations seem to have.  We're quite comfortable, in principle, with the notion that there are some things that God just can't do.  For example, we believe the Atonement of Christ was necessary because God was obligated to bridge the gap between/satisfy the demands of both justice and mercy--He couldn't save us unless He was willing to sacrifice His own Son.  And while it's not "officially" doctrinal, we also speculate heavily on the notion that God was once a mortal as we are now--a supposition which which suggests that He had other mortal peers, some of whom may have attained godhood as He has, but over whom He presumably has no dominion. 
I don't think we really subscribe to the idea that our God must be the only/mightiest God in all the eternities and the infinite universes that ever have or ever will existed.  Nor does our faith require that our God be absolutely all-powerful within the realm that is His own.  Really, we envision a council of gods who are each supremely mighty within their own spheres (and only One of which with whom, as Brigham Young put it, "we have anything to do"); and it is enough for us that God is spectacularly more powerful than we are and that He invites us to become as He is.  As for humankind's "free will" or "agency" (and frankly, I think within Mormon discourse we often conflate those two concepts, but that's another discussion):  God, like any parent, has kids who develop independent consciences and wills; and who can only be controlled in accordance with certain principles (and even then, only to a limited degree).  In fact, in Mormonism, the kernel of each individual's identity--the "intelligence"--is co-eternal with God Himself.  God can organize and refine intelligence, but He cannot create it.  The will of the intelligence (or, in its later states, the spirit or the human) is subject to God's power, but is not really subject to God's will unless the intelligence/spirit/human chooses to become so.  
Within Mormonism, I think the more intriguing question isn't whether our "free will" is bound by God's omnipotence, but whether it is bound by His omniscience.  If He can see all things past, present, and future as "one eternal now", as Joseph Smith taught--then in a sense, is my future already written?  Am I just pantomiming a role in a play whose ending is already known?  In my experience, that's the question that tends to keep philosophically-minded Mormons up at night.

Im encouraged to see 100,000+ people in the stands watching the Oregon vs. Ohio St football game. They did not require proof of vaccination.  
General conference will again be closed to the public next month.  
I realize that conference is an indoor event so it is appropriate.  Maybe if this social plague continues we can plan to have conference in an outdoor venue in the future.
I love to see the patriotism of Americans, and their refusal to be cowed by fear.