Carborendum

I like that attitude. I think I agree. But when the question is shoved up in my face: Then you really have to ask yourself some tough questions. At this point, I don't seriously consider this happening. But as a thought experiment or Socratic discussion...

I'm guessing that the question is meaning to ask how much we spend on groceries, etc.? Eggs $1.89/doz (organic $4.35/doz.) Butter $4.09/lb (organic $6.05/lb) Grass-fed Ribeye: $11.49/lb (No organic available). ($34/lb is what I pay at a steakhouse, not at the grocery store. And it would come with two sides and an appetizer) Other items: Gasoline: $2.55/gal. (Fully organic ) Whole Milk: $2.75/gal (No organic available). Bananas: 19cents/ea (No organic available). I'm making pretty good money as well. But I don't throw it away like Californians do. I'd be suffering if I had to feed my family at those California prices with California taxes. And Texas just passed a law reducing the property tax. So, now (I believe) CA pays more in property tax than Texas. You ought to move to Texas.

That is even more interesting. I read all the posts from Friday. We were all just trying to verify things. Few comments were made at all. I believe the only thing that could be taken negatively was my comment about having misgivings about him being given the new position in the Church. To the lurker exmormon, if that's what you consider "losing it" I now understand why people call Reddit a cesspool. I guess you've got to hype it up as much as you can. But on the bright side, it was your thread that satisfied those concerns. One of the responders posted: If true, that is certainly a rare unicorn. I don't care what his political leanings. But if he stays true to his covenants (my definition of TBMs) then I don't have a problem with him. Again, I'm trusting the words of a complete stranger until I have reason to believe otherwise.

I'm glad you have a sense of humor about this. All in good fun.

It goes to nullification. I'd argue that refusing to enforce Federal laws is quite different than enforcing state laws which have been deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS. Refusing to enforce (like blue states declaring sanctuary status) is something I can get behind. I disagree with that particular policy. But I see that as state nullification of a Federal law, not the Constitution. Nullification is about giving more freedom to people. I'd give a wide latitude (not complete power) to either party which allows (with equal protection and application of the law) more freedom to the people and neutralizes the powers of government to enforce things if the people tend to agree with that freedom. Nullification is NOT about encouraging additional restrictions on the people regardless of which party or level of government that is doing the restricting.

There was also a linked video from an ostensibly TBM who is "losing it."

We made it on Reddit through an Exmo. Was that you, @old? https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/195bhm0/oh_no_new_lds_communications_director_supports/ Apparently we're the the only public site that qualifies as TBM. And we're "losing it" over this appointment. Hmm... Interesting.

I've spent a lot of the past 15 years or so praising the 10th Amendment Center. They specifically fight for states' rights. I'm all for that. The states now are the only remaining line of defense against a run away federal government. Recently, however, I see some states blowing off the dictates of the Federal Government in ways that are unconstitutional. Bear in mind that this isn't just about right/left politics. It is about what powers are constitutionally afforded to the Federal Gove, State Govt, and to the people. Whenever the state or federal powers go over those lines, they are doing so without proper authority from the Constitution. Whenever the people cross the line, we're descended upon by TPTB. So, what happens when federal government wants to enforce something that is not within its Constitutional powers? The state is supposed to step in and protect them from federal powers. And the method of stepping in can be passive (like Abbott's Come and Take Them policy about gun confiscation) or it can be active (like the placing of concertina wire along the southern border). But what if the state wants to infringe upon the 2A? If SCOTUS declares a state's gun ban to be unconstitutional and issues a cease and desist order to the state, but the state continues to fine and arrest people for violating the unconstitutional ban, then what can the Federal Govt. do? @Just_A_Guy specifically, but anyone else?

Words, words, words... Context matters. Even the word "fear" or "afraid" can have many different levels including respect or dislike. Did the client accept our proposal? -- I'm afraid not. Fear of the Lord is not (just) being afraid of hellfire and damnation. It also includes a "healthy respect" for something that is very powerful (much as a bullfighter has a "healthy respect" for the horns of the bull). I know that if I go too fast on the road I could get into an accident. So, I take precautions. All of these words have slightly different meaning depending on context. And multiple people here have given enough exposition and proper context to relay that it is a very different feeling than you are trying to shoe horn into the conversation. But you're not even allowing for the meaning which has been clearly denoted. If Sherinian ends up doing something to make the Church look bad, I'm sure that most of the faithful Saints will just roll their eyes and blow it off. But what if one of your children decided that this lampooning of the Church was actually valid and left the Church over it? All's well that ends well? Just shrug it off? I have some friends and relatives teetering. Some have already left because of this sort of thing. Will all be well? Sure, if you consider some people with weaker testimonies being shoved off the cliff as "all's well."

Another musing came to my mind recently. I came across some interesting things when I looked at additional translations. The Latin Vulgate uses the word Verbum. It is interesting to note that the same word is used for both "word" and "verb" in Latin. Now look at the Spanish. They follow the Latin root and use Verbo. Unlike Latin, there is a separate Spanish term for "word" (palabra) which is not used. French uses a different tactic. They use an ancient term for "word" (Parole). This is a highly formal word today. But it would have been more common back in the day. Today's word is mot. (Beatles: Sont les mots qui vont tres bein ensemble). But they rephrase it to say "In the beginning was that which was the Word of God." Interesting that they reword it so. (Some translations in both French and Spanish resemble what we see in English. But most of the French versions have this re-worded version.) For those interested in Korean: Among Spanish speakers there are a few protestant rabble-rousers who believe it is heresy to use "verb" because that is a made up Catholic translation. They insist it must be palabra. Well, I'd like to take a different perspective and submit that it all means the same thing. The real intent is lost in the etymological history. When we have a plan or an idea, the first physical thing we do to make it a physical reality is to describe it with words. We form the ideas into words in our minds. It begins to take shape even when it is only words in our minds. Then we speak or write those words and it becomes more clear to us. It is more real to us. In short, verbalizing something is the first verb (action) that we perform in the process of making an idea into reality. Jesus was the first creation of the Father to enact the Plan of Salvation. Jesus is the Plan of Salvation. And the Plan was made flesh. The plan was enacted into the world by the condescension of God. No more will sin and sorrow grow, nor thorns infest the ground.

That's shocking to hear.

Now you're just rehashing old arguments. Yes, I agree with you that in the end all will be well. I just look at all the crap that will be in the middle and have to wonder. And that can be as little as rolling your eyes at the comments from the peanut gallery or as bad as a crap-ton of persecution. Again, alls well that ends well is a correct philosophy. But that doesn't really help me to handle all the crap on the way to the end. I wish I were better than that. I'm trying to be. But for now, I'm not.

@keeperofthegate, I hope you didn't take my earlier post as a criticism of your parenting. Sometimes you can do everything right, and still someone exercises their agency in a manner that would be completely counter to what you taught them. My in-laws have had two interesting sons go off the deep end. **************************** One BIL was fairly rebellious. No matter how faith-centered their home was (and believe me when I say that this family is about as faith centered as you can get) this son simply did not believe any of it. He went along with his parents as long as he lived in the house. But as soon as he turned 18 he couldn't leave fast enough. Then there was one day where he and his ex-LDS girlfriend decided that if they were to get married they needed to have a common faith. They had both been raised LDS. And they somehow agreed that having religion in a family was important. But neither had accepted any LDS beliefs. So, they went church hopping and decided to figure out how members of various faiths tested whether they were the right one. They asked at each church. And they got some answers (which I've never asked about). But they realized that none of it worked. They just didn't buy the logic that any of the Churches used. None of them had evidence that was all that convincing. None of them even seemed to follow the Bible that they claimed to cherish. Mind you these are not my thoughts. This was how he described it as he lived through it. Eventually, they decided, "What about our parents' church?" Yes, they had long ago believed that it was not their church anymore. It was just their parents' church. They were already well versed in LDS scriptures and had read the Book of Mormon, giving it a fair shot. But they just didn't believe it. So, now was the time that they'd pray about it. They met at a park and decided that they would both go to opposite ends of the park to make sure they would not influence each other in this decision. They both felt a strong witness and began to return to each other at the middle of the park. By the time they met in the middle (literally) they both knew they knew and that the other one knew as well. They went home to tell their families that they had a mighty change of heart and knew it was all true. *********************************** The other son had always gone along with things and even bore his testimony. But it didn't seem that he actually wanted to change himself for the Lord's sake. I have no idea if he ever had a testimony. But he said he did at times. Eventually, he lost his faith. None of us really knew why since he wasn't one to share much. But when he fell, he fell hard. None of us knows exactly what happened or why. But my guess is that there were several trials that his family went through over the course of several years. And it was just too much for both the husband and wife. They are so negative that if they even hear a very generic quote (not at all LDS specific) from a General Authority, they immediately get belligerent. As long as we don't talk religion (AT ALL) they're perfectly pleasant. ****************************** Just as Lehi had Laman and Lemuel, there are plenty of parents who did everything right, but they still lost some of their children.

It would depend on whatever the big secret is that JAG alluded to.

That doesn't really line up with what I said. In my post prior to the one you responded to I said Telling everyone the Church now endorses gay marriage is not "humiliating" the Church. I also wonder about the big secret that JAG has to keep under wraps for now. He said that once all the information is out, it will exonerate the Church. But will he provide all the information in a manner that bodes well for the Church? One cannot serve two masters. When push comes to shove, which one will he choose? That is a candid question. I don't know. I've known liberals leave because the Church wasn't accepting enough of gay rights. I've known conservatives leave because the Church obeyed the law regarding masks, distancing, and getting the jab. I've also known those on both sides who humble themselves in spite of disagreements and continue in faith. I don't know which way he will go when all the chips are down.

No, it was my fault. I noticed that as soon as you "corrected" Vort.

The wording you used doesn't quite convey the meaning in our faith. The way I phrase it requires that we separate the meaning of "what is required?" vs. "what is the mechanism?" The mechanism of salvation is the Atonement of Christ. The requirements for us to apply His Atonement on our souls are many. Baptism is one of those requirements. As a metaphor: I'm a professional engineer (PE) by trade. So, people might ask either of two questions. What makes you a professional engineer? What do you have to do to be an engineer? To be a PE, I need to get licensed by the state. That's all. To get the license, you usually have to Get accepted to engineering school. Get a diploma Pass the initial engineering exam Apprentice for several years Pass the final PE exam. Wait for the paperwork from the state. I hope you can appreciate the analogy.

I certainly hope so. But that hope is coupled with concern.

There, I changed the wording.

Unfortunately, for me, I tend to worry that maybe this will allow Asherinian to "publicly humiliate the Church" rather than defend it. Can he be trusted to state the correct position and offer the complete information?

If they are adults who live on their own, it is too late to do something directly. The time for that has passed. So, do the indirect route. Continue to show the good example of what being a faithful Saint means. And you can fast and pray for him. I wish you the best of luck.

I don't mean to speak for Grunt. But I'll add my 2 cents. Maybe vengeful is not the precise word for it. It would be almost sinister. If we believe: In Ex Nihilo creation. This means that God purposefully created every single aspect of our being, good and evil. God is all knowing from the beginning to the end of time He has set up the universe in one giant, perfectly synchronous clock that will simply move the way He pre-designed it to move. Then we must conclude: We don't really have free will. God made us exactly as we are when we're born. He gave us the circumstances to which we would react and by which we learn good or evil. And we react in perfect harmony of God's predictions/desires for our eternal destiny. By our experience here which God designed, some people will go to hell. God wills it so. He created them for the purpose of going to hell. This is the concept that we might call sinister. We don't believe in ex nihilo creation. We have prophecy that tells us differently.

Timcast once made a pro-abortionist eat his words. Abortionist: A woman can control her own body. The fetus is part of her body. There's no denying it. Tim: Well, what if a pregnant woman decided to take drugs throughout her pregnancy? It's her body. So can she do that? A: Well, no, because at that point she's trying to kill the baby. T: OK. I don't really know what your position is anymore. I was rather surprised. The great majority of those who are all gung-ho on abortion would absolutely say she could do that.

"Nothing" "Completely". These two words are where the liberals have a point. But the prick of that tiny point is somehow magnified into a ballistic missile of LGBTQ justification/rationalization that MUST be accepted and imposed upon the backwards conservative dinosaur who is too steeped in ancient superstition and tradition to understand God's "true" motives. So say the woke prophets who deign to speak to us from their protected positions of authority. No. Religion by its very nature is conservative. Without that trait, it would not be a religion. It would be a fad political movement. If religion is to change so wildly with every generation, the purpose of any religion in society would be completely untenable. Religion codifies "acceptable behavior" in a manner that it would be tyrannical for government to do. But is required to be stable if it is to have any benefit. Only slow, gradual changes across several generations even have a chance at being a credible movement. Any major changes in religion requires prophecy (not a social movement) to justify a sudden change. The trans movement? It was so far off the radar that neither Obama nor Hillary were willing to allow trans to use the bathroom of the opposite sex. And pundits were touting the fact that it would never be pre-operative transexuals. Only post-op. And it would be ridiculous to believe the movement would go that far. Well, here we are about 8 years later, not even a full generation, and it is being shoved down our throats without a consideration for all the harm it is doing to our children. It isn't even allowed to be debated in public forums open to the lay person. Parents are arrested for addressing a school board or a PTA meeting about how their daughters are being raped by a male pretending to be a girl. And virtually all liberal Latter-day Saints are trying to claim this is the road that the Lord wants us to go down as a Church? Back to the original point, Yes, almost nothing is off the table. But we obviously need to keep things that are absolutely core beliefs as sacred and undeniable. The Atonement of Christ is central. There is no substitute. But when we consider some things so close to the core that most of the rest of our belief system simply wouldn't make any sense without it, we need to pause for just a moment to consider. How close to the core does it need to be for us to require and truly demand of the Lord that we receive a divine manifestation on the order of the First Vision? Sealing, eternal families, the roles of father and mother, husband and wife. With the past 150 years of understanding how important these are, and to change to beliefs that have been condemned throughout all of human history, without any explanation other than, "Hey society is saying so, and we need to get with the program" do we not have a right to demand such a manifestation if we are expected to go along with it? Where is the doctrinal and theological basis for such change? All I've ever heard is "Society says so. Therefore, the Church will have to change to catch up." Is this where we are? Society (not God) tells the Church which direction to go? I thought the whole purpose of the Church was for us to influence society -- not the other way around. God's law is to stand as immutable as possible. And we don't change our values, only our priorities based on the needs of that generation. If we choose to go along with gay marriage and trans ideologies, it is to the destruction of the family and the death of the human race. We do this to the detriment of our eternal destinies and our utter destruction.

Remember that there were very few manuscripts that could have a credible claim to be "the original." Virtually all we have are copies of copies. Almost none are complete. They pieced them together from several different sources of what appeared to be the same document. And who put them all together? Fallible men. It doesn't seem reasonable that they actually saved every single page of every single work from every single prophetic author. In fact, we know for a fact that the authors were not the individuals who ostensibly wrote it. The five books of Moses that we currently have were clearly not penned by Moses, himself. It was another man's words. And to believe that through copy after copy no one ever made a transcription error? No one ever wanted to simply summarize certain points? No one ever made a mistake in translating an older version of the language to a newer vernacular? If that's true, then why didn't we just stick with the KJV or the Tyndale or the Coverdale edition of the Bible? No, the words are not the same. And I'd daresay that some of the modern translations convey some personal opinions in the translation rather than a literal translation. For some, we simply have things lost in translation. Then, of course, we have the Aramaic originalist theology that insists that the Aramaic version of the New Testament is the original, and the Greek was the translation (which was prone to errors). I used to entertain that idea. But I've favored the Greek lately. But some disagree. Of course, the older the document, the more prone to errors and issues with translation -- even if those errors are with semantic shift rather than actual language-to-language translation. 20,000 manuscripts are no confirmation of perfect preservation. What if 50 years earlier than the earliest known copy, there was an erroneous copy, then all the later copies were based on the erroneous copy, how would we know? This is a topic that I could go on a great deal about.