Carborendum

I'm a Spartan. No contest. Ironic.

From personal experience, helping others is not only hard work, it is sometimes self-defeating. I've tended to focus my energies on trying to remove "clutter". We try to make things clearer by removing some of the confusing mess that life tends to throw at us. When things are clear, they can see truth. Then I notice two paths people tend to take: People don't notice that the clutter is gone. They've lived with it for so long, they don't even know how to behave without the clutter. So, they keep doing what they have always done because they had to deal with clutter. They've come to expect it, then embrace it. Some people are able to see clearly because the clutter has been removed. They make changes and begin to experience peace and happiness for a time. But eventually the clutter returns because... that's life. And they go back to their old habits because they've never learned to deal with the clutter in the first place. So, ideally, we'd find some way to show or explain to people what all the clutter is doing and how to deal with it. Sometimes we need to clear the clutter because that is the only way they can see clearly. But once they are able to see clearly, they need to see clearly despite the clutter. How to do that? I wish I knew.

Wow. I had a hard time believing that was written by a liberal. But I realized that it was an old school liberal who had not bowed to the woke mob. A lot of people have not changed their positions. But the parties have moved the needle.

Matsah can be hard like crackers or soft like a pita. And it very often has salt and oil for flavor.

If it isn't interesting to the internal politics of the US, the news has nothing to spin. So, why would they waste breath on it? I'm sure you'll find one or two articles about these things on virtually every news outlet. But they're not really pushing them too hard. It doesn't sell.

I'm not sure why this is important. The Greek word for paradise, depending on context, can mean any of the following: The abode of the dead (the spirit world) The place of the pious awaiting resurrection (paradise) Heaven (any of the kingdoms of glory) So, any of these meanings can be accurate no matter what you think is going to happen to this man. But we have to ask ourselves what was Jesus trying to say? Why would He have said "verily, verily..."? It didn't sound like He was trying to condemn him as if it were too late. It sounded like He was trying to encourage him. It wouldn't be much of an encouragement if He were referring to spirit prison. The man certainly seemed repentant. He was willing to take responsibility for his sins. He showed remorse. He spoke to Jesus in humility. He showed faith in Christ. If all this is true, wouldn't he be ushered into Paradise? What is the point of sifting through the definitions? Are we trying to condemn this man to spirit prison when he showed repentance? What is it so important?

You still haven't provided any links to specific examples. You made the claim. You need to back it up. But let's assume you're correct (you could be). That is by no means an indication. I'll give you an example. Did you know that for many years people thought Joseph had the First Vision at 15 (16th year of age) rather than 14? True. This was because of a side note that the scribe (Fredrick G. Williams) wrote as a superscript in the 1832 account. As far as we know, Joseph never spoke those words. Yet that version was widely circulated saying "15 years old." Virtually everyone believed it and everyone repeated it. But with so many other versions (which were less popular for a while) saying 14 years, it was eventually corrected among the common membership. So, mistakes can happen en masse a lot more often than people like to admit. Just look at mainstream Christianity. And, yes, it is quite possible that multiple accounts misheard or misunderstood exactly what words were used in the speech, and what their meaning really was. And, of course, there is one more test for valid revelation: What other apostles then repeated Young's doctrine in their own words and by the Spirit of Revelation? You said many of his contemporaries repeated his words. I'm aware of people quoting him, but not adding their witness of the Spirit to Young's words. Show the links.

I'm pretty sure they were. But the subtle changes of the artist's hand were just enough to give the "hyper-ideal" figures some qualities that simply wouldn't exist in a real human being.

That doesn't answer the initial question I had. Why is the record speech the way it is? That simply isn't a complete record. And without the complete record, any snippets,. secondhand quotes, etc. simply are not sufficient for us to figure out what the heck he was saying. I'd hate to think what people might think about many things I said without proper background.

Not really. I was looking for (as Mav claimed) specific examples of Young's tendency to jump back and forth between topics without preamble or segue. I've read through the JoD and never noticed this tendency anywhere besides the A-G theory. It was so unusual that I distinctly remember the first time I ever read it, thinking,"This is really strange. Where did that come from? It has nothing to do with the topic he was just talking about. It came out of left field." Then when he was done with that, he seemed to pickup right where he left off. Literally, if you plucked A-G out of the discourse, it would seem like a perfectly seamless discourse. No other changes required. I have seen many times that speakers (incl. Young) would make a statement that he would give a little background that was tangentially related. And that background was necessary to understand the next section of the original topic. To some, this seems like jumping around. I don't because that is the way I do some discourses myself. But none of the discourses I've seen was as stark as A-G. None of them made me get whiplash from simply reading it. A-G did. That is why I believe there was some sort of mistake with this record, as well as the way people heard it.

I'll tell you two stories: 1. I was at school and found a girl sitting alone. I started up a conversation with her. We did some nice flirting for a while. It was fun. After a while, another guy came up and asked if she was ready to go. From their interactions, I gathered they were married (calling her "hon" and so on). I felt kind of embarrassed and disappointed. She was cute. 2. My sister had a few friends over to her apartment. All of them had husbands. One of them talked about "dressing sexy." I don't know if those were the exact words they used. But that is how I remember it. Because I was very quiet and "the hostess's brother" most of the ladies were very free with their speech. They indicated that it was not just the normal "competing with other women." It was about attracting other guys. I eventually interjected,"But aren't you all married?" "Yeah. But that doesn't mean we don't like attention from other men." I kind of looked at them with a quizzical look. "It's flattering to get hit on by a guy. And it's completely safe when all you have to do is lift up your hand and show your ring." I still don't know whether this is good behavior or not. But I do know that you are not alone in wanting to feel pretty and desirable.

Uhmm... Gee... Thanks...

Uh-huh. I'm sure there was no artistic license on the crafting of the features for animation.

We actually do the four questions and go over the plagues of Egypt on Easter Sunday. We eat the traditional Paschal foods for Easter dinner and talk about links between the deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt and the deliverance of man from sin.