Midwest LDS

The debate moderator should have had a microphone kill switch.  There were parts of the debate where they were just talking over each other.  It happened far too much in the debate in my opinion.

It was an absolute mess.
On the other hand . . .
One could argue that Trump gave Biden merely a ramped-up version of the treatment Biden gave Paul Ryan in the 2012 VP debate—interrupting, repeating blatant falsehoods, engaging in personal smears, deliberately avoiding substantive policy discussions . . .
Ben Shapiro tonight asserted that Trump (figuratively) isn’t the murderer, he’s just the coroner; and when people see him putting the body in the fridge they assume he’s the reason the person died.  I think Trump’s role in the death of the American body politic has been somewhat more active than Shapiro’s metaphor suggests . . . but, perhaps, not by very much.  

My track record in predictions have been abysmal... So much so that I am starting to make predictions that I hope to be proven wrong on..  Sadly it seems whatever fate controls these things wants me to be wrong... even if it has to make me right to do so 

I predict that the Republicans will say that Trump won the debates and the Democrats will say Biden won.
 

At the beginning of the pandemic, I finally caved in and bought a year of CBS all access, to keep up with my Star Trek addiction.  I'm glad I did it. Picard had a wonderful first season, there were so many ways "old man in space" could have been bad, but they did it well.  Discovery's first two seasons are pretty good, I'm jazzed that season 3 hits in October.  
And I'm getting a huge kick out of Lower Decks - the animated Star Trek comedy!  I'm grateful, in a universe where we might have been saddled with some awful Wesley Crusher thing, we got this instead.  It's canon, and it's enjoying poking fun at trekkies who take themselves too seriously.

Our Stake started going back in June. (In one of the highest outbreaks and death rate States in the US.) Our ward met every week. They require mask but the Stake leadership even had everyone singing. 

Fast Forward to September. 
We received a new Stake Presidency and they immediately took all wards back to meeting 2  times a month, no singing and reduced the number allowed by about 30%. 
 
The area authority that attended the creation of the new Stake and Stake presidency had some interesting comments. One was we needed to get use to wearing mask, it was going to be a while before that need goes away. Second he asked members who were not attending church because they didn’t want to wear a mask, to reconsider their decision. 
 
Finally our previous Stake president had played pretty lose with the virus issues. He even had his mask off at times while sitting on the stand with the Area Authority. He quietly put his mask back on once the area authority made his comments above.

Meh.  A little skeptical questioning on the forums keeps our apologetic abilities sharp.  A little dishonesty/disingenuity by a supposed “Christian”, reminds us of who we’re dealing with.
My issue (speaking personally) is when some anti or wannabe preacher insists on making themselves the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral.  Hijacking threads (as seems to have happened here), is just tacky.

1) What is the source for the claim that the GAs live the Law of Consecration?  (I’m not disputing it, necessarily; but this seems to be one of those things that everybody knows but no one can source.)
2)  FWIW, property records in Davis and Salt Lake Counties are online, and searchable by owner name; and several members of the Q15 are on there as owning homes in their own names or under family trusts.

I'm going to bring up this topic again because I've just had a change of perspective on just what the differences and similarities are here.  It was because I actually got a copy of the Priesthood manual on Church Welfare and read it.
The primary thought that has enlightened my mind is the "full title" of the law.  It isn't just "The Law of Consecration".  It was "The Law of Consecration and Stewardship."
Primarily what this meant was that, yes, we signed over the deed to our land and property to the Church.  BUT!!! then we were given an assignment to be stewards over that property.  The vast majority of the time, such stewardship simply meant that the signing the deed over was effectively nominal.  Yes, a legal procedure.  But the way it was practiced, it was "in name only."  The steward ran the farm, received profits from it and gave what he could to the Church for welfare purposes.
As a side note, there were many of the particularly wealthy who would not sign over their property.  None of them were excommunicated for that refusal (that I'm aware of).  And when the practice was discontinued, the property was all given back to the stewards.
Today, the general authorities practice the same thing.  And I wonder when George P. Lee was excommunicated, did he ask for his property back?  Was it given to him?  I don't know. But I'd suspect that if he did ask and it were not given back to him then we would have heard about it all over the news.
So, again, even though it was a legal procedure, it was apparently in name only.  So, why do they practice it?  I think that it is because when you sign on as a general authority, you have to have a physical reminder of the level of sacrifice you have to make to serve in that capacity.  Signing over the rights to all your property is a pretty big commitment.
Each of us makes a commitment to live the Law of Consecration.  But we are not asked to sign over our homes.  I think that on a practical level, it would be untenable.  A general authority will live in the same place for pretty much the rest of his life.  But I've moved into 11 different homes since I've been married.  What process would I have to do for each time I had to move?  I'm going through the process in my head and it could potentially be REALLY complicated.  Would I even be able to move? How would I have had the jobs I've had in my life? 
The reality is that I would end up unemployed most of my life if I had to stay where I was.  Instead, I make that covenant in my heart, but not on paper.  I view all my property (both real and personal) as the property of the Lord.  I am only the steward of that property.  If the Lord were to ask me for it, I'd have to oblige.  It's His.  How could I keep it from Him?
So, while some people say that we don't live the Law of Consecration today -- only the GAs do -- they are technically correct.  But on a spiritual level, I disagree.  The difference really is "just a piece of paper."  The GAs who practice it are still given stewardship over all that property.  They basically run it as if it were their own, just as I run my property as if it were my own.  But in the back of their minds, and in the back of my mind, I'm always reminded of the covenants I've made.  It isn't mine.  It is the Lord's.  And as long as I carry that thought in my mind and the principle in my heart, then I believe I am living the Law of Consecration and Stewardship -- with or without that piece of paper.

I share similar sentiments.  But technically he hasn't broken any rules of the board that they can confirm.  I would think that the constant threadjacks would be evidence of "trollish" behavior.  But apparently the mods disagree.  I would think the evidence of sock puppets would also be breaking the rules.  But apparently, they didn't find the evidence compelling.
Tollish behavior can be evinced in the post you responded to.  I had offered a peace offering by pointing at something we apparently agreed on -- based on his own words.  But instead, he chose to re-focus the discussion to a point of disagreement that had not even been brought up in the thread.
CARB: I'm glad we agree on this.
JONAH: What?!?! We agree on something?!? Then I must be wrong.... uhmm... LOOK!  See here!  We disagree!  I told ya.  See?
I would have thought that finding a point of agreement would have been a good thing.  But apparently he would rather focus on disagreements.

This is a good point.  I had thought in the past that it was simply a disbelief.  But based on Jonah's response to my Romans reference, it seems that they can understand it just fine.  They just refuse to accept it.
That's why we call them creedal Christians.  They believe in their creeds more than they do in the Bible, it seems.

Where is that in this thread? I never said it.  Adding in ideas and topic instead of discussing what is at hand seems like a threadjack.
Back to topic.  Based on your interpretation that YOU provided, how does that inform your position on the topic I posited in the OP?  What is your thought on the OP?

@Jonah I'll take my life here in mortality over your version of heaven any day.

Needless to say we disagree on this subject
While I completely respect Creedal Christian's right to believe as they do in this regard, I do passionately disagree on all fronts (that it's what scripture teaches, logical, fulfilling, etc).

What I'm about to say may seem snarky or stating the obvious.  I'm not trying to be snarky when I say this, but quite serious.  And what I"m saying is not very obvious.
I believe it is prophetic for ANY day.   What I mean by that is...
The sequence of events indicated in the BoM are the signs that the Second Coming is near. Whether we actually continue the sequence of events to their fruition depends on whether we are "ripe in iniquity". If we are not, then we will be pulled back from the brink. If we are, then we will complete the sequence of events.  And we will know that Armageddon is nigh at hand. The fact that we still see a large population fighting against the tide tells me that we will not complete the sequence of events.  And as long as there remain enough to stem the tide, then we will continue another year, or another decade, or another generation...

Unless there is something that he disagrees with - then he is not so nice and generous.   Anyone can be nice with those that agree with them (even a Democrat does that!!!) - a nice person is nice when being nice is not expected.  I do not expect the media to be nice but I do expect the media to be accurate.  That is their one and only job - to be accurate - even if they have opinions in the media; it is somewhat acceptable only, if and when they are accurate.  I believe one element of accurate in the media is understanding all possible sides and being able to argue for what you disagree about at least as well as your opposition.  But attempting to silence one's opposition - is never nice - nor is it acceptable in a free society.  
 
The Traveler 

Of course they would.  Look what they did with Obamacare.  
Put the judge on the bench

Fair enough. I suspect that there is less caution and purity messaging in our college/career groups vs. our jr/sr high ones. So, perhaps more discretion is allowed. Still, modesty and opposition to fornication are counter-culture values we share.

When you're a youth, dating exists to get to better know people and practice basics of relationships.  There's more focus on group events.  And of course, things should remain chaste.
When you're a adult, dating exists for the purpose of finding a spouse.  There's more focus on pair off events.  And of course, things should remain chaste until marriage. 
Nothing about the Lord's Law of Chasity is dependent on your age.    Living together / sex before are very serious perversions of the Lord's way.  Postponing marriage for selfish reasons of "I don't want to grow up!" is childish.  
 
Also a relevant side point since you mentioned conversion: if a person is interested in coming to Christ, taking upon His name, and joining the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, that person is excepted to try to follow Him.  It's the give your whole heart, mind, might, and soul thing.  Therefore, yes you are actually expected to strive to keep the Lord's Law of Chastity.  If you're cohabitating, then you're obviously not there yet.    So we're work on that before baptism and formally taking His name upon yourself.  

Hmm.  You mean, your opponents tried to get your buy-in by promising not to do something, and then they went ahead did it anyways the first chance they got?  
Yeah, welcome to my world.
For better and for worse:  the days where Democrats could flagrantly lie in their negotiations with Republicans (“gays just want to be left alone, they don’t want *marriage*!“ “gay marriage doesn’t mean you have to agree with it!” “gay marriage will certainly never have repercussions for free exercise of religion!” “just legalize the aliens who are already here and we *promise* we’ll get tough on border security!” “no, we’ll totally support the military while it goes after the SOBs who perpetrated 9/11!” “we want abortion to be safe, rare, and legal; we certainly don’t celebrate it!” “we just want to remove the statues of Confederates; of *course* we continue to revere Washington and Adams and Jefferson and Madison and Lincoln!” “We believe in treating people the same regardless of race” “We have no intention of nationalizing the health care industry!”) while simultaneously expecting Republicans to keep their own promises regardless of cost, are now over.

If your point is that the Republicans are liars and hypocrites, then I grant your point. The fact (and it is a fact) that the Democrats are far worse doesn't justify the Republican hypocrisy. But this is nothing beyond political gamesmanship. You can bet that the Democrats, in this position, would do exactly the same thing. Their pearl clutching on this matter is political theater, nothing more.
Consider: The Supreme Court has had a leftist majority for the entirety of our lifetimes. The political left sees a leftist Supreme Court as their inherent right. And that is what is really at stake here. Why shouldn't the Supreme Court take a conservative bend? The Left sees this as unacceptable and will thus do everything in their power to prohibit it. Meanwhile, the Republicans are 100% within their right to nominate and confirm the justice of their choosing. How does the Left respond? With a threat to burn the entire house down by packing the court under a Biden presidency.
Rail all you want against Republican hypocrisy. I might even join you. But don't lose sight of what's really going on here. As is almost always the case, the real, deep evil being done here is being done by the Democrats. The Republicans are mostly garden-variety fools and jackasses. The Democrats are something far more sinister.

I don't represent the GOP, so I get to be more blunt. The secular fundamentalists hate America's undercurrent of Judeo-Christian morality with a passion. They desire to force our private colleges to house gay partners. They would use the force of law to compel us to provide professional services (cakes and flowers, etc.) for sacrilegious marriage sacraments. They would declare unfit for public office any who take their faith serious enough to be, for example, pro-life. The dogma lives loudly in us indeed. So...call us hypocrites all you want, we're putting as many of our judges in as we can, while we can. Your election term may be coming, but pardon us for defensively prepping.  

RBJ is also on record.  The Blaze: Here's what Ruth Bader Ginsburg said about voting on Supreme Court nominations in election year
 

Good National Review article on the history of such things.  
 
 
 
 

I'm torn, but thinking that any semblance of decency, respect and cooperation between opposing sides is gone . Many religious leaders are expecting persecution, either following November's election, or a few years later. At least having one more judge in place will delay some of the trials/tribulations to come. :::sigh:::