Carborendum

Yes, and one would be right to do so. In fact, many conservatives have praised Trump for being more federalist on this issue than many others would have been. But then there's another important piece of the puzzle. Each state has constitutions and laws and separation of powers as well. Are these abiding by their own state rules? I really don't know. I'm sure it depends on the state. But I'd bet most of them are not obeying those rules.

I can't address the reasoning for many evangelical Christians or any other faith-based opponent of abortion. One of my friends (a really gentle and very wise man) who was an evangelical said So, apparently, not everyone who is pro-life make the exception for rape. I can try to explain what my personal interpretation of the Church's position is. One thing to remember is that the Church has no official position on whether that body inside the mother's womb has a spirit in it or not. The Church has consistently said that abortion in ALL cases is one of the most heinous sins of our generation. In such specific pronouncements on abortion, the reasoning has never really been detailed. It simply is wrong. Others point to freedom to choose. With rape, the mother never chose to take on the risk of pregnancy. Her choice was taken from her. So, the choice of abortion is given to her to restore her ability to choose. People point to the characterization of "like unto murder" and decide that means it "is murder." Well, that's slight difference is a wide chasm, apparently. For me, it would be most important Latter-day Saints to find out just when the spirit enters the body. Then we would know if it is indeed murder or not -- from a spiritual/doctrinal perspective. But since that information has not yet been revealed, we simply don't know. But because of the "like unto" rather than the full declaration that it "is murder" simply means that with or without the spirit, the wonton wanton destruction of a human body or potential human body is to be avoided as if it were alive. An underlying philosophy is that if we culturally lose the reverence for life of past generations where responsible motherhood was revered as the pinnacle of womanhood and responsible fatherhood was the pinnacle of manhood, then we will lose the reverence for life in general. And this is proven out in the oft touted stories of dumpster babies. We may not know if the fetus is a living being scientifically. But we do have some "tells'. That is, there are biological indicators that the fetus is indeed alive by all the basic and meaningful scientific/medical definitions of life at least after a certain point. Thus (even if I were not LDS) I would hold to the fact that the fetus be treated like a living person after those tells are present. Killing it because of physical danger to the mother is justified as self-preservation. But otherwise, what justification is there? In the case of rape, it may be argued that the unborn is effectively enslaving the mother for 9 months. Is that really justification? If so, one must first admit that the embryo is a living being. If you can't admit that, then there is no justification to kill it. But if it isn't a living being, then there is no justification required. If it is not a living being then why was a man convicted of a double murder for killing a pregnant woman? None of this makes sense. The fact is that if we all respected life and even the creation of life, then there would be no confusion. But when you (generic) bring up the abortion issue, only confusion abounds because the first premise must be that an embryo or fetus is not alive. And that can only occur when you start to disrespect the creation of life, even if you claim to respect life and freedom, there is a cognitive disconnect when you say that an embryo is "just a mass of cells".

I'm starting to get some work again. So, I can stop eating food storage. One of my biggest clients is still not moving. Part of it is that his financier came down from Canada to iron out all the details. Then he went home just before the quarantine -- and before signing the papers. Now we're waiting for Canada to open up so that we can pick this back up again and hopefully begin the project. The family is beginning to liven up. Families are more open to play-dates for the kids. My wife was happy to get a really good score on a term paper. She's confident that she will get her degree at the end of May. And she's beginning to entertain the idea of going back into the workforce. Our kids are getting bigger and not in need of her on a daily basis anymore. Most of the kids are about the same except for those who have play dates. Some bad news. My mom just died Tuesday night. It was a heart attack. But it is going to go down as a COVID death because she had it a few weeks back (very mildly). She was fully recovered, but they heard she had it, so... SMH. We can't have a funeral because of COVID. And we're not sure about a virtual service. I spoke with my sister who lives in Salem, OR. She said that she's deathly afraid of it. She's in the age category and has asthma, and lupus, and.and.and... She also just got out of the hospital about a month ago due to some kind of blood poisoning??? or something??? Her new husband works in the healthcare industry, so he recognized the symptoms and said she had to go to the emergency room. They said he saved her life. Another hour and... So, she has to take the time to wear gloves and a mask everywhere because she's totally and completely in high risk groups. When she brings her groceries home, she has to wipe everything down with bleach, including the shopping bags and all food containers. But she doesn't know what to do about the food itself. You can only chlorinize that so much. I mentioned the news that you posted about what tests were done on the virus. And I suggested that she get one of those large bottles of alcohol and put a spray nozzle on it. That will kill it and will evaporate quickly. She said that she can't because of the run on rubbing alcohol in all the stores. No one has it. Her husband can't get it from work because they keep it locked up. And only a few people have the key. Can you imagine? Hospitals lock up alcohol because it is such a hot commodity? I mentioned the over-reporting of COVID deaths due to co-morbidity. But she said it's even worse. They under-report the number of cases because at the hospital they only have so many tests. And they can't report a case until the test verifies it. Yet, they pretty much know people have it and have to send them home to save space for verified COVID patients. And they can't verify it without the test. So, they under-report the cases, and over-report the deaths. That means the current morbidity rate is much lower than the statistics we're getting. I'm beginning to get very blah about everything nowadays.

I'm really not following the logic here. You'll have to explain the dissonance to me. Both are saying that the individual has freedom to do things. And with freedom, comes some danger. Did I miss something?

As I suggested in the other thread, why don't you volunteer it instead of expecting her to pry it out of you? Sometimes, it's not her. It's you.

Sounds good. Let's take a closer look at that emergency declaration. March 13, 2020. That doesn't really say anything about closing parks or arresting people because they open a place of business. Was there another one? He later issues social distancing guidelines. But I have not yet seen anything where he says such guidelines should be enforceable through fine or imprisonment. If you know of anything where he said that, I'd be happy to look at it. Barring that, I don't see how anything Trump did has caused these state and local officials to go to the extreme measures that we hear these (admittedly isolated) incidents portray.

I'd agree. And let's face it, MG was correct. Most of us are fine with executive orders that fit our agenda. But we hate them when they don't fit our agenda. But regardless of all that, the only basis in the Constitution for executive orders is to do what is "necessary and proper" to actually enforce laws that have been duly passed by Congress. It is quite another thing for an executive to issue an executive order that has nothing to do with any law that has been passed. So, regarding the executive order that you posted, what law was it based on? If there was one, then the governor need only provide sufficient argument to get the courts to agree with him. If there was no legislation upon which it was based, then he is overstepping the bounds placed upon him in a free society.

I'm having trouble believing the details of what you're saying. I'm sure that the overall story is correct. But your interpretation of the details simply don't make sense. I'm NOT saying that you're lying. I do believe you've incorrectly interpreted things, or you're giving an incomplete account. (I also agree with @Jane_Doe about going to school again. That makes no sense. Just move to a higher-density LDS-ville.) I don't know why anyone would say "nope" simply because you didn't go on a mission. Sure, one or two. But ALL? How many? All two of them? If you didn't go because you were a waste or unrighteous, then, I could see some people wondering about some things. In saying so, I want to state that "past sins that are fully repented of shouldn't be held against anyone." However, some additional baggage that comes with certain sins (like you got a girl pregnant and have a baby "Serviteur" running around) may not be something that a girl wants to deal with. If you explain that you were a convert and did not have the support of your parents to go on a mission, some may believe that you're in earnest. But some would question why you didn't work hard and pay for the mission yourself? Many (and I do say MANY) people do that. So, why didn't you? The bottom line is that whatever your answer to that question is will be very telling. If you simply couldn't because you really couldn't, then most girls will accept it and decide whether you are worth it as you are. But if your overall story as to why you skipped it sounds wishy-washy, then they might think that they don't want a wishy-washy man to marry. They want a strong man who knows how to work, to serve, and to honor his priesthood. If your reason/excuse sounds like you aren't that kind of man, then why would they want to marry you? If your reason/excuse sounds like you really did all you could, but it just didn't happen, then many women would be more than happy to marry you. Have you ever considered that some women may not want to marry you because they don't want to deal with anti-Mormon in-laws? EDIT: I just read Vort's post in the other thread I find this somewhat in line with what I was saying. So, here's the game plan. If a girl asks about your mission, then figure out a way to tell about your conversion to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Bear your testimony in story form. Let your testimony ooze out of every pore. One cannot hope to have a good missionary without some good converts. They go hand-in-hand. Tell her how much you appreciated the missionaries that you had in your life. Tell them how much you wished you could go, but simply couldn't because of "circumstances". Tell her how much you felt the Spirit as you read the Book of Mormon and prayed about it. Tell her how much you look forward to having your children go on the mission that you never could. This will certainly replace the mission as the "proxy" that Vort mentioned. And you will know if it is the lack of mission that the girls run from -- or if it is just you.

Further than that, executive orders are often challenged. And sometimes they are overturned or denied or whatever the appropriate legal term is. So, assuming he meant that executive orders are "not subject to checks and balances" that too would be incorrect. It would be correct to say that executive orders are "not as easily" checked by the standard methods outlined in the Constitution.

War has already been waged between nuclear powered nations. They just saw the futility of actually using those nuclear arms in a war. So, conventional means continue.

I can believe it. 😄

From the article. "FOUO" IS a type of classification of documents which require their use to have some restrictions. That said, I need to point out something from the perspective of someone who has no love for the Chinese government: What did they do wrong? The leaders of the country were taking measures to look out for their own people above the needs of people in other countries. Is that not what national leaders are supposed to be doing?

I'm still wondering what your original point was. I asked you before to clarify. But you appear afraid to do so. I can only guess that it is because you believe that if your point were clarified, then it would be revealed for heresy. But you can go ahead and hide behind a lot of other people's words that cover a variety of topics and make a variety of statements on each topic never really saying what your original point was anyway. To help others, I offer the following five points: Is the person claiming to be acting within the bounds of his or her respective stewardship? Is the person worthy to teach such knowledge? Is the communication in harmony with the standard works and teachings of the prophets? Does the communication edify or instruct? Does the communication build a person’s faith and strengthen commitment? Applying these to this thread. On a forum such as this, # cannot really be a consideration since it is informal and we understand that it is mostly personal interpretation (at least to a significant degree). We should take some time and energy to base our points upon those who ARE in authority to declare gospel truths. We have no way of knowing if anyone on the other end of a computer is worthy. We can only judge the declarations made. I think it is safe to say that any thread whose primary purpose is to tell us that the teachings of the prophets are flawed is not a communication that is in harmony with the teachngs of the prophets. While not claiming to be "revelation", it is claiming to shed light on heretofore, unknown thought. I see no such unknown thought. I only see a plea to deny the words of the prophets. I see nothing in the OP to build a person's faith or strengthen commitment. Instead, I see the opposite.

Some are born mediocre. Some achieve mediocrity. Some have mediocrity thrust upon them. -- All's well in Zion.

I guess I can kinda see it. But I'm not sure how this is anything but a video equivalent of a 2-year-old stock photo of a person being used to head an article about that person. Only in this case, it was a "random person" from one place/time to represent a random person at a different place/time. I guess I found the person's reaction kinda funny. But I really don't fault CNN for this. Now, if there were a twist -- that they were trying to tout long lines at the grocery store but couldn't find an actual line anywhere -- THAT would show poorly on CNN. Is that the case? Was this older image necessary to "spin" the news because all the doom and gloom they were touting (thanks to Trump, no doubt) simply couldn't be found anywhere so that they had to resort to an old video of Harvey?

PC, sorry to go off topic. But I'd heard that a certain faction of Christianity has dubbed the NIV as tainted by Satanic influence. One argument is that the same publishing company also published many satanic bibles and similar occult books. To me, this was hardly conclusive since many big publishing companies tend to publish a lot of things. But then they went into several verses cherry picked with their interpretations of how satanic the NIV was. I haven't taken the time to listen to or verify all their arguments since I never cared for the NIV, myself. But I know many evangelicals that swear by it (as it seems you do). So, my question is: Was this a joke? Are there really NIV protesters out there? Or was that just another ONN type piece that I just didn't pay close enough attention?

I'm not sure what he was complaining about. All I see is that CNN took a random shot of random people in a public situation. And he's complaining that it was him. Is that all he's yelling about? Or was there more to the story? I find it odd that the screen combines people in Houston along with UC-SanFran + Democratic Presidential debate + "How you can cope with your fears." But that is somehow scream worthy? What am I missing?

I usually like Branco. But what does Bill Gates have to do with it? Did I miss something?

Speaks pretty poorly of Mitt, when both Scott and I agree on our opinion of him.

That's me to a T. I feel so pathetic.

That was over 20 years ago, my friend. I, myself, was shocked when I found myself saying,"I remember that I did X about 20 years ago." Then I found myself saying that about 30 years. Then 40... It's a shock each time. BTW, I found my first "persistent" gray hair the other day. SMH.

While I agree that we're not in a "police state", the argument you used to arrive at that conclusion is faulty. What the founding fathers went through would not be at that level. But they freely called it tyranny. Tyranny is not an all-or-nothing condition. It is a sliding scale. And I think it right and proper to have some people cry out every time a bona fide right (especially those enumerated in the Constitution) is infringed. And when only a few people cry out, then we're pretty safe believing that we're not in a police state. But as more and more people cry out, there is more credibility that we are in a police state. When a great number of people are imprisoned or executed for political statements, then we KNOW we're in a police state.

I can tell you an anecdote from an official Church Historian. He was present as a temple worker with the Temple President of the Dallas temple (I could be wrong about the temple) many years ago (I believe it was in the 90s). At the time, one of the apostles was visiting. He (the historian) was not told of the reason for the visit. At some point the apostle asked the temple president: The president responded: The historian then told me that although he'd heard about it, he didn't know until then that it was a real ordinance. But to his (the historian's) knowledge no one he knew ever received it. If we can believe this anecdote (and I have no reason to doubt his stories as a Church Historian) then I'd tend to believe that the ordinance has been withheld from this era due to lack of faithfulness, righteousness, etc. It is a shame that even the faithful are denied blessings because there are too many unfaithful that take lightly the things the Lord has provided.

I was just telling my wife the same thing. It was like the movie Contagion. This is a startling case of life imitating art. When I first saw the movie back in 2012, I thought this was unrealistic. But I later found out that the epidemiologist who wrote the book made the book much more true to life than the movie. Unfortunately, I haven't read the book. There were a lot of logical leaps made in the movie that I'm told were cleared up in the book. But the parallels to what we're seeing today are startling. Basically, A popular vlogger who broke the story in the first place cited an off the shelf drug as the cure. He was right. The medical establishment decided to tell everyone he was wrong. They falsified tests on him proving his evidence was "only anecdotal." They took the same old drug and tweaked it very slightly to get around patent laws. Then they patented it again and re-marketed it (including endorsement from the FDA and TPTB) for higher profit. I am not saying I know that this deception is happening here. But I wouldn't be surprised to find out that it is so.

Oh, duh... I'm still waking up.