Vernor's Ginger Ale

I'm going to second @Vort's request for a source. I'm personally surprised to hear that "LONG BEFORE" the arrival of "the MORMON Church" that Christians have been "PRAYING" for the gathering of the tribes of Israel. I'd like to know what records show this. I've never heard of this. To the contrary I've heard of Christians persecuting Jews all over the world. I've heard that the Jews were persecuted even here in the US during the time that the Church was established. And they've been persecuted even to this day by Christians all across the country. While it has gotten much better since about the 70s or so, they're still persecuted today in places as metropolitan as NYC. Even as we fought against Hitler, anti-Semitism was widespread among the US military. So, to hear that "LONG BEFORE MORMONS" arrived, that Christians have been praying for the gathering of all the tribes of Israel is unknown to me. Can you share some sources? Blame my ignorance on the topic, if you must. But I've truly never heard of it. What prayers were said? By whom? Any names? Dates? Locations?

I've taken the time to look at your past comments about Third Hour Articles. It's a bit surprising that the organization that hosts the current cadre of regular contributors to such a forum as this also has a tendency to promote such unfaithful authors as they have in the past. The most notable that @Just_A_Guy pointed to with the BYU rainbow protest. This is disappointing. But at least this truly was an inspiring article. I enjoyed it. Thanks for pointing it out.

Political Power and Physical Nation: The nation of Israel would never have been accepted by the world without the restoration. While the world points to the Balfour Declaration and to UN Resolution 181, as well as the events following it (like the US support) as the mechanism of the formation of the State of Israel, the Lord's time table is much longer. As Latter-day Saints, we point to the Dedication of Palestine for the Return of the Jews. The nation of Israel was not formed by man's hand, but by the Hand of God, through the power of the priesthood held by His appointed servants. No man taketh this honor unto himself, but he who is called of God as was Aaron, by a living prophet of God like Moses. Spiritual Gathering: The spiritual gathering is about temple work and about family lines coming together. While we have individuals from each of the houses of Israel, the gathering was to be en masse. And for the smaller houses, even the establishment of the nation of Israel cannot really be thought of as fulfilling that. So, this is at some future date. What we do know is that the spiritual gathering is not merely gathering as a political nation, but as servants of the Lord Jesus Christ. How many Jews in Israel can claim faith in Jesus as the Messiah? Very few. We in the Church have been primarily gathering those of the House of Ephraim. When the reeds have formed a wall against the wind, the remaining houses will gather, not in the Old Jerusalem, but in the New Jerusalem established by His Church and Kingdom on earth. And that ain't the UN.

Clue: No question mark.

Well that escalated quickly. I may actually default on my mortgage. But the laws of the state prevent foreclosure for just just a couple of months. And given the circumstances, banks will tend to be more lenient. I have seen the bishop for a storehouse order. He mentioned that there has been a run on the storehouse. Some are using it as food storage or to maintain a luxury diet or something like that. I told him my circumstance and my analysis. He was satisfied that I needed some help. He was pleased to hear that I had sufficient savings under other circumstances. So, we'll see.

Wow! I'd never heard of that Youtube channel. That was useful. Thank you.

Ah. Thank you, Well, as a liberal, I'm sure you can appreciate the fact that the bulk of the money $300B is to help small businesses. Conservatives should be able to appreciate the fact that the need for the bailout comes due to government mandates causing their businesses to crash, rather than market forces deciding their fates. From your link:

Minor correction: $1000 per adult, $500 per child. For a family of four, that would be $750/person. And that was only proposed legislation that Congress has to vote on. And it was not "per month". It was only a one time shot, which has the option of being offered again in six weeks. No repetition after that. I highly doubt anyone here got the impression that the graphic was meant to indicate this was an actual back and forth between them. I was a comparison between their rhetoric. Yes, he is. So, we're talking about: $500B for the population (in two payments). $200B for businesses that provide essential services (including airlines). I haven't heard of the $50B or $450B. Could you provide a source for that?

I know I'm new and no one here would care much. But I felt I had to vent somewhere... I was working for one company and I got about the sweetest deal I could ask for from another company: company, clientele, co-workers, pay, benefits, commute, atmosphere, etc. Everything I could ask for. I had put in my notice to my old. And that was enough that they booted me out early to make room for others they wanted to keep during a sudden downturn. I was ok with that. I had some reserves. I just considered it a vacation. I was looking forward to the new company. Then, the HR lady called me and told me that they couldn't onboard me to the company because of social distancing protocols that the company had set up. They figure it will be at least another month. One month would be fine. As I said, I have some savings. But I had just used up much of my savings to pay for a new HVAC unit because the old one was completely broken. If it drags out to two, then I'll be looking at bouncing checks and missing a mortgage payment, credit card payments, etc. One benefit is that I can spend more time goofing off on the internet... 😎... But I really don't like simply not working. I'm always busy with something. But there's simply nothing to do. Almost all businesses are closed around here. And I don't have the money for it anyway. I can't get supplies at Home Depot to do some house projects I was looking forward to doing because I have bills to pay. I just heard that Trump signed some bill for mortgage companies to play nice. I'm still trying to get a hold of my mortgage holder for their take on it and what that means for me. Unfortunately, this has apparently affected a LOT of people. And it finally hit home for me. The positive side is that the new company still wants to hire me. They just can't get me through the process. I wish there were some way I could get through this. But it looks like money (or the lack of it) will kill me sooner than any virus will.

This assumes that plural marriage is a "higher" law than the monogamous marriages we observe today. I see it as simply "different". Not higher. Not lower. The Lord would PREFER to have monogamous marriages. But only command when there is a specific exception that He knows is applicable. (See Jacob 2.) So, it would be more plausible to consider monogamous marriage as a higher law -- if one were to compare. Consider this: Is there any commandment that people don't break? Only the really serious ones do average people not break on an almost daily basis. I think a large percentage of people get out of this life without ever having murdered anyone, for example. Does that mean that the Lord should take away the commandment to stop coveting? Bearing false witness? Worshiping the temporal gods that we see in modern culture? Disrespect our parents? (Who here was never an angry teenager?). So, should the Lord take away all those commandments because we're not ready for such a law? How many so called faithful members of the Church drink their occasional beer or wine? I've, unfortunately, come across far too many. So, why not remove that covenant since that isn't even an eternal commandment, as it appears to only be for this dispensation anyway. And a LOT of people have a problem with it.

Help me understand some things: I don't understand how he can lose his testimony and still believe in temple covenants at the same time. I don't understand how marrying again after her death means you're being unfaithful or unloving. I don't understand how this would be any different if you were marrying OUTside the temple rather than INside the temple. Was your late wife a convert? Why their maternal grandmother? EDIT: You mentioned that your son didn't "really lose his testimony." So, why did he leave your home? It sounds like there are other unresolved issues here.

It may be that the stake leadership was unprepared for such a drastic change in conditions like this. Other stakes have already had a dry run due to other similar conditions in the past. Another difference may be the level of preparedness of each family or ward. Some are very experienced. Some may be part-member families, recent converts, or other similar conditions which would make it difficult to allow widespread home sacrament meetings. But it looks like they should figure it out by next week.

Well, that's interesting. I have to apologize. I had completely misinterpreted your whole post. You have now clarified that you were asking for "what to tell him". I thought when you said "respond" I was thinking you meant "how you should react" or that you didn't know "what to think/believe" or "how you should feel about it". Well, see what I have written at the bottom about "rules over doctrine". You now have clarified that he was suicidal. I got nothing like that from the quote from his post. It sounded like a political stump speech by an activist. And TBH, I still don't get the suicidal vibe from his post even while re-reading it. But I'll take your word for it. I believe several others have covered that end of things. And it has been a profitable conversation over all. The point of greatest concern to me is this: So, protesting against just and virtuous principles made him feel better. But hearing someone read the Family Proclamation reminded him of the hatred at BYU. (I'm assuming that's the "one incredibly rude counterprotester" he spoke of). I wasn't there. I can only read what you posted. And that seemed the case considering the post that @Just_A_Guy posted earlier in this thread. It didn't sound anything like a plea for help from one who was suicidal. Instead, I'm reminded of two scriptures: Just to let you know, I have gay friends. And they say stuff like this all the time -- yet they are not suicidal. They're angry. That's how your friend's post came off to me. Angry. Not suicidal. But again, I'll take your word for it. I've found that, as others have said, there's nothing you can say for someone in his predicament. You can only "be supportive." You show love, compassion, etc. There is a problem with simply saying that the Lord is there for them: I've found that (counter to Literate Parakeet's suggestion) that most who are in this state don't care or refuse to believe that the Lord is there. So, all you can do is show them that YOU are there. That's it. Nothing else really works or matters or does anything worthwhile (unless truly moved upon by the Spirit). While doing this, don't fall into the trap of forgetting who you are. This week's CFM lesson had one speech from April 1989 General Conference referenced in it. I'll go over that with you. Pres Hinckley made an analogy using a pair of binoculars -- how "magnify" means to "bring closer". Looking the opposite way will "push away". (He says it in a much better way than I am. But I'm summarizing). We often try to push the Lord away because we want our own wants and desires satisfied, demanding that the Lord change His ways to serve us. This is like looking through the lenses backwards. That's not the way it's supposed to work. Then the last part of the lesson "Avoiding Spiritual Blindness by Focusing on the Savior" says something rather interesting. Elder Cook speaks of "looking beyond the mark" using language that I hadn't heard before. He says a characteristic of looking beyond the mark is "elevating rules above doctrine." The doctrine was already known. Homosexual behavior, including giving expression of homosexual feelings, is not, and has never been, acceptable practice before the Lord. This has unequivocally been taught all the time. Yet he didn't care about the doctrine (and apparently, neither did his "friends" he spoke of). He was only interested in "the rules". Per your response to @Vort, that would probably not go over well whether suicidal or someone simply making a stump speech. While none of this will do him any good, I'm saying this to help YOU through this. While we always want to show charity to others no matter what, we cannot show charity by giving up on values we know to be right and true.

See the bold. Do you really not know how you should react to that? He blames the Church for telling him it is wrong to push the boundaries as far as possible. Get those wheels as close to the edge of the cliff as possible.

You're right. But it doesn't matter. You're not going to be able to explain it to her. $5/wk is worth the marital harmony. Just let it go.

Before I comment, I need to say that you have some good points. But for the sake of accuracy, I need to point out the bad ones. This is not only bad math, but it is misrepresenting the numbers and context of the market for those presidencies. First, Your numbers are based on linear growth. Investments are calculated on an exponential annualized growth rate. My numbers shown here are based on exponential growth rate. Second, Let's make sure we're comparing apples to apples. Best presidents to Best presidents and worst to worst. Reagan beats out Clinton. Third, you're only looking at discrete points rather than overall patterns. Take a look at the patterns. The individual points you've chosen seems reasonable on the surface (inauguration day). But looking at overall patterns and proper context shows that you're not being fair to the presidents. While there is no doubt that the economy is tremendously impacted by the president's leadership and economic policies, it is not the only thing. When certain events occur (like this past week's acitvity) we have to give credit where credit is due. When taking this all into account, Bush 2 and Obama were about dead even. Carter was the worst. Notice that even with all the advantages that Obama had, he only beat out Trump by 1%. While we can agree that Trump's DJIA numbers are not as high as Clinton's, the other economic indicators are much better (unemployment, employment, GDP, inflation rates, etc.) And, let's not forget that while I'll admit that Clinton did a pretty good job from an economic policy stand point, he also had a couple aces that the others did not have -- introducing the Roth IRA and the income tax on Social Security benefits -- both of which greatly changed the economy for the last several years of his presidency. One note: the slopes of the lines are not dependable since the y-axis is logarithmic. But flat lines are flat lines.