Carborendum

I don't believe this idea. Never have. It is contrary to everything I know of the gospel. I base this on three principles: I don't believe we are assigned to a kingdom as a reward/punishment scenario. I believe it is a natural consequence of who/what we are as eternal beings. It is what we gravitate to. The bodies which we possess in our kingdom are specific to that kingdom. A fish cannot be happy on dry land. He must constantly be in water. The Telestial beings cannot abide the glory of the Celestial specifically because they cannot abide the Celestial Law. That incongruity inevitably leads to pain/unhappiness. We can objectively say that anyone who can abide the Celestial Law will indeed be happier than the Telestial being who abides the Telestial Law. But that completely ignores the fact that Telestials simply cannot abide by the Celestial Law. That's why they're Telestials. This isn't correct. The Atonement was to overcome the consequence of sin. As I said, your statements (and all the quotes you linked) about consequences are perfectly accurate. But from where I sit, I don't see how we can separate the sin from the consequences of sin. They are as inseparable as "the act" of hitting someone and "the pain the person felt" because I hit him. You can't have one without the other. Where on Earth would I get this notion from? I spent a lot of time considering the following phrase: It doesn't say he will not remember to punish for sins. It doesn't say he will not remember the consequences of sin. He says He will remember "the sins" (check the antecedent) no more. The Lord knows all things. He doesn't have a faulty memory. And He cannot lie. So, if He doesn't remember them anymore, what does that really mean? I know most people will think this is ridiculous. But I'll put it out there anyway. I have a different understanding of memory than most people. I'm cursed with a mind that doesn't forget very easily*. I can forgive. I can ignore. I can move on. I can rebuild, etc. But the memories are still there -- not by choice. So, to say there is a figurative meaning of the Lord not remembering simply doesn't speak to me. I cannot believe that it simply means "it will be as if". And I don't believe it simply means he will not "call it up from memory". It says He will remember them no more. I take that much more literally than anyone else. How can this be if He cannot forget, yet He is capable of comprehending all things at once? We as resurrected beings will stand before God with a "bright recollection of all our guilt." So, what can it really mean to remember no more? Here's where I go off the rails. And I completely understand if everyone thinks I'm bat-guano crazy. I'm going to say something that makes perfect sense to me. And I have no idea if anyone else will understand what I'm saying, much less agree with it. When scriptures tell us our garments will be white as snow, I believe that the Atonement of Christ is far more powerful than we believe. We know it isn't simply an accountant's ledger that is paid in full. I believe the Atonement of Christ changed the fabric of reality for all eternity. I see this as an Eternal Declaration (In eternity, not during the mortal frame of the earth) that the sins themselves are gone just as much as the consequences. The sins and the consequences thereof are all one object. We cannot separate them. The only way the consequences of sin are gone, is to have made the sins such that they never happened. We're not simply absolved. I believe that in eternity, they simply will have never happened so long as we take upon us His name and have faith in Him. I believe this is a miracle beyond our understanding of what we consider reality. But it does ring true to me. ******** *Description/example of my memory: This is just a bit of background, so people will know where I'm coming from regarding memory. I'm not writing this to brag. I don't consider this something to brag about. One does not brag about breathing. It's just something that happens. I'm not a savant. And I don't have total recall. In fact there are many things I've forgotten about from just yesterday -- especially if I am not paying attention, which is most of the time nowadays. But I remember many things from years ago pretty clearly -- more than anyone else I've ever met IRL. Details and accuracy are about the same as most people's memory of a few days ago (not perfect, but mostly correct). And I tend to be able to memorize things much more quickly than anyone I've ever met. My sister decided to go on a tour of Korea the summer before we both left for our missions (we overlapped at the MTC for two weeks). Long story short, our birth family met her at the airport. They took her to our birth home (they still lived there) and toured all around Seoul and surrounding areas. When I saw photos from her trip, I named and described many of the things I saw. This included recognizing one sister, by a jacket she was wearing. Her face and body had changed. But the jacket was still there, a bit more worn than I recalled (probably a hand-me-down from our older sister). I told her stories of what occurred at various places in the neighborhood from when I was around 3-5 years old. She said that a lot of that behavior was still happening in the neighborhood. She asked what else I remembered. I then proceeded to sketch the layout of the entire neighborhood with about a dozen points of interest. I pointed to which direction the mountains to the north were from our house. She was able to verify everything I said was correct, although not to scale. One photo showed a crack in the closet door. I was amazed that they hadn't replaced the door yet. She said that she wondered where the crack came from. I then told her the story of how the crack came to be. I told her in sufficient detail that it jogged her memory. She expressed some awe that she remembered seeing it happen. The strange thing was that it happened before my conscious memory kicked in (probably when I was 2). But when we were still in Korea, she told me the story. And I still remembered it 13 to 15 yrs later.

I believe you inadvertently made my point for me.

I'll put in my two cents. From wherever they don't belong. I won't take the time to specifically quote what has been said before. The idea that a Telestial person simply will not be happy in the Celestial Kingdom because their sins* will prevent them from really enjoying what the Celestial has to offer them. And no one will "like" being in outer darkness. But sons of Perdition (if I can use some imagery) will be burned more by the Glory of the kingdoms than they will from the fires of hell. I think I see what you're saying here. But... What if acts and consequences are not the separate things we think they are? What if they are inseparable? If someone hits me with a fist, do I get mad at the fist? Or the person? In the same way, humans tend to get this idea that "I want to sin, but not have the consequence." That simply isn't possible. Why not? The sin comes with the consequences. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but the bill always comes due (thank you, Mordo.). The Lord does not cleanse us "from wages of sin." He cleanses us "from sin." After the explanation I just gave, this seems like a semantic argument. But it makes a world of difference in how we look at the idea of sin.

These reports: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/southern-poverty-law-center-lawyer-reportedly-arrested-domestic-terrorism-atlanta-cop-city-attack https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/06/us/atlanta-cop-city-protests/index.html is conjuring up parallels to the Kingmen rising up as the war with the Lamanites was going on. WWIII sure appears to be right around the corner. And these guys have been getting organized for the past several years. Now, they are actually performing acts of terrorism in broad daylight without fear of repercussions. Small acts now. But when we send our best troops (including reserves and national guard) off to foreign wars, what do you suppose will happen on the domestic front? Too many parallels to the BoM during the days of Capt. Moroni. It is ominously similar. IF (see, I said "if") DeSantis wins the Presidential election, he will be assassinated at some point. I wouldn't be surprised if there is so much domestic terrorism while the war is going on that martial law will be declared. Not that I would relish that. But that seems to be the pattern that is presenting itself. Too many parallels. We can only hope that it is Pahoran rather than Lachoneus.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-64848106 British Health Minister (in 2020) asks when to "deploy the next variant" of COVID to "scare the pants off" of anti-lockdown citizens. Upon release, he didn't even deny he said it. (The paper trail was pretty clear). He simply said What goes through the minds of some people?

I can certainly understand that. But this was a hidden gem.

@NeuroTypical linked to a news website recently (https://www.tellmebest.com/). It is now on one of my preferred lists of "neutral" journalism sources. It is slightly left-of-center. But it reminds me of how journalism was in the 70s and 80s. They were on the liberal side. But they were journalists, not activists. Here is an example article. https://www.tellmebest.com/cdc-shigella-infection/ Look at the careful wording of the following sentences: How can these statements both be correct? Notice the word "susceptibility". Then compare "more likely to affect". They seem contradictory. But it is the detailed description further in the article indicates the intended meaning of those phrases. The first sentence is talking about the chances of infection should you get the bacteria on you. (Once you have the bacteria on you, it doesn't matter who you are.) The second sentence is about who tends to get the bacteria on them in the first place. (Depending on your personal habits, you are more or less likely to get the bacteria on you in the first place.) No politics. No wokeness. No cancelling. No condemnation/virtue signalling. No bashing any side of any argument. This is high praise coming from me because I recognize the site is still a slightly left-of-center. They avoided mentioning any politicians or poltical party. They didn't use party-affilliated language (Democrat, Republican, conservative, liberal, etc.) I did NOT like their article about the Walgreen boycott because it argued in favor of abortion. But I still have to give credit to the author who avoided using invective when stating their position. So kudos to them. They also wrote fairly even-handed words on the state of America today. https://www.tellmebest.com/life-in-the-us-best-worst-changes-past-20-years/ They did mention that Republicans and Democrats seem more polarized. Well, duh. I think everyone agrees with that. So, nothin controversial there. And, yes, they mentioned environmentalism and LGBTQ advancement. But they didn't "sound" like activists. They simply stated that they thought it was a good thing. And that's ok. You're allowed to be honest about your opinions/positions. It is only when I begin hearing things as if the "journalist" is an "activist" that I begin to roll my eyes. And I just didn't get that vibe here.

I've been considering a lot regarding what was said earlier on the forum about how it isn't just blue/red states. It is blue/red cities and counties regardless of states. I heard a while back about Seattle basically giving Walmart the finger. Then Walmart gave it right back to them. I recently heard about this story (for which you provided the link). Other reports said that they were closing simply because the thefts made it impossible to operate a business. I notice that the article tried to bring balance to the story. It didn't really fill the article with political rhetoric. I liked that. They pointed out that Walmart simply cannot keep operating with such retail losses due to theft. Then they pointed out that a lot of the crime is due to inflation + unemployment + low wages. But they didn't blame any party or political leadership. Very refreshing. I'd never heard of "Tell Me Best". That is interesting because I'm quite eclectic in my news sources. I'll definitely be adding this to my list. But I am confused by another article I found on their site. I'll talk about that in a different thread.

Wouldn't happen to be in your household, now, would it?

Precursors to the event. https://atlpresscollective.com/2023/03/05/if-you-build-it-we-will-burn-it-defiant-and-energized-defend-the-forest-movement-retakes-ground/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/fire-breaks-out-atlanta-police-training-center-after-protest-media-2023-03-06/ VIDEO OF CONFRONTATION: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=931571874537362 ARTICLE https://www.foxnews.com/us/atlanta-georgia-protesters-call-violence-police-shooting-leaves-dead-officer-injured

Took a while to find. And this is not the complete quote I read many years ago. But it is the best I can find for now. The article is dated 1834 (So, Joseph was 28 at the time). The more complete quote I read many years ago did make the comment that women would be jealous of his lashes.

Meh. That falls into the category of "figure of speech". In fact, this phrase is so widely used it is considered a cliche. Scriptures offer examples: Camel through the eye of the needle. It would be better if he had not been born..."

Yeah, but @Alec is not a freak. That's just you (BURN!!!)

Trim his facial hair? Have you ever heard of doing that to eyelashes for a photo? If anything, they would have pronounced them.

I am conceding the eyebrow. (cue Elliot Spencer) It's a very distinctive brow. But, no, the eyelashes would not be too much to ask of the daguerreotype. The detail of the brow itself seems to indicate that the eyelashes would have been caught as well. The description of the length of his eyelashes was of when he was an adult, not a child.

Context. Verse 15. It was Peter's house. Was Jesus' wife's mother part of Peter's household? If not, why would she specifically minister to them instead of the women of the house?

I recall someone's description of Joseph as having lengthy eyelashes that would make most women jealous. Is there a reason why he wouldn't have much in the way of eyelashes in this photo?

Freakin' A(u)ssie!!!

Message me and we'll talk... I mean, uh, of course not. Why would you ask that?

Gen 14:18 It was taken up some time after the Tower of Babel and before the death of Abraham. We don't have dates.

Aww, man. You don't need to buy it. It's free online. Since you're getting it, you have to keep in mind that it consists of four types of changes. 1) Updated phrasing/vocabulary due to semantic shift). (About 40-45%) 2) Commentary/clarification. (About 40-45%) 3) Things that were lost have been restored. (about 2-5%) 4) Actual corrections. (The remaining 2-5%). 5) Changes because he was modifying principles for our dispensation only. But is correct as it stands. (2-5%) Since no one today really knows where those lines were drawn, those percentages are only my own top-of-the-head estimation from what I've read so far.

This is a fair question that many Saints have posed. And there doesn't seem to be a consensus. There are two common lines or reasoning on the topic. I'll share one of them. There seems to be a disagreement on whether the Telestial and/or Terrestrial Kingdoms are a form of salvation or a form of damnation. I tend to think it is both. You're saved from hell. But you don't get to live with God. So, if you don't live with God, but you don't stay in hell, is that salvation? Or is that damnation? If you were LDS and believed these things, how would you see it? ************ I don't see the phrase "saved in our sins" anywhere in that passage. We all sin all the time. We're all sinners. And even when we try to change, we still have sins which stain our souls. If you want to use that as a definition of "in our sins" then we believe the same thing. By that definition, we are saved "in" our sins. But the gospel of Jesus Christ requires repentance. The word is used in various form about 60 or 70 times in the New Testament alone. In each case, it means to feel remorse and turn away from sin. Repentance at least requires effort, even if you think you're not making progress, you keep trying. You're on the wagon. You may fall off, but you get back on. The Book of Mormon meaning of "in our sins" means that we refuse to feel any remorse or make any effort to turn away from the sin. If we are still looking toward sin, we cannot be looking toward the Savior. They are in opposite directions. One cannot say that they embrace sin and love the Lord. That is a lie. Which direction does your tent face?

I don't see why XI would be opposed to simply ordering another Tiananmen Square event.

I'm not sure if this is as bad as we might think. Many Chinese live on so little, that they may be happy to get 3000 calories a day in food. As for the flavors that they reviewer mentioned, Asians don't care. Heck, I'm an Americanized Asian, and I don't see a problem with the rations. I could live on that for months and be happy. I actually lived on less for about 9 months? (IIRC) while going to college.

Their raw numbers don't really matter much in today's age of technological warfare (I'm using a very broad definition here). I have no way of knowing if they'd actually use their nuclear devices. They'd have to be convinced that the US would not retaliate. So, they'd only use them on soft targets. I think this is why China will be more likely to attack Russia than the South China Sea region. Xi Xinping has shown himself to be a man who would sell out his own children if it meant that he would get more power. I wonder if in his own twisted mind, he actually believes that would also guarantee Chinese prosperity. The raw numbers is also a weakness that Xi doesn't seem to care about. If the supply chains are blocked off, he'll just cut rations to "the unwashed masses." I'm not sure about this. Yes, they have the biggest standing army in history. But what does that mean when we can carpet bomb them to oblivion? They can't easily transport those troops by air or sea. I'm not an expert on the details of warfare, but how do you see it playing out where their numbers would matter? It would seem that they'd only matter to Asia. What would they gain from that? India and Afghanistan (all the -Stans) are not exactly soft targets. India is about to surpass China for population. Yup. And I don't know how this can be countered with the rising generation. If you can excuse me for a bit of racial stereotyping: Asians, math, computers. And beyond stereotypes, there are some realities. China has made it a point to get the best math and science minds in their country to work for the government. Meanwhile, the woke ideology is actually born from Chinese propaganda to demoralize the US. And it specifically targets Asians at the advanced education levels. Of course, it hasn't been as successful as they had hoped. But it has made a dent in the quality of overall candidates for STEM fields.