Carborendum

There is actually some truth to what you say. But not in the way you think. Definition of Sociality: The "links" which we call "relationshops" between people. People we know here, we will also know there. Those we love here, we will love there. And, yes, if you were the kind of person who always fell into cliques and shunned everyone who disagreed with you here,... well, you get the picture. But to obtain the glory spoken of in the unbolded portion of your quote, we must learn to love everyone, not as "somebody that we used to know" but as brothers and sisters. If we don't know how to treat each other as brothers and sisters here, we will not consider each other as brother and sister there. And if we can't consider each other to be brothers and sisters, we won't have that promise of Eternal Glory.

I never thought you did. Apparently, this is a false belief since WAYYY too many people older and having higher IQs buy into it hook line and sinker. I agree. This assumes, of course, that whenever a child is exposed to something toxic, that they will let their parents know about it. With ideologies, that is not always the case. I've said many times that "There is no silver bullet." This is a metaphor to say that there is no "one-pronged attack" that will solve society's ills nor guarantee raising our children to the Lord. So, with that background, I agree. Yes, and they spent an awful lot of time each day with their mothers. What if they spent 8 hours a day with someone other than their mothers? Do you think their mothers would have had much influence over them? This is really the main point I've been making. It's fine to expose our children to other ideas -- especially dangerous ones that they need to be inoculated against. But for them to spend MORE time with people just pouring these ideas into their heads and not have equal (if not more) time correcting such ideas (or at least providing the child sufficient freedom to explore answers themselves) then they are going to go down the path of least resistance. I'm hearing you. Yes, part of my point is that this is out there so much that we don't need to willingly, knowingly expose them to it. It will happen on its own. And we need to have enough discussion in the home on such topics so that they know what to look out for, so they know to avoid it when they come across it. For ideologies, rather than "avoid" it when they come across it, they need to be taught enough correct principles to offset it. But I see no reason to purposefuly, knowingly expose them to something that is both ubiquitous and toxic. Yes. Parents. Not public school teachers.

I read it and accepted it. That latest post wasn't what I was talking about. Gator, I love you as a brother and a child of God. I know you tend to think things through after a lot of research. These qualities make me want to admire you. But you have mocked, insulted and belittled without ever apologizing. Instead, you blame me for not having a sense of humor. You can give your blanket apology of "if I've ever... I apologize." That's nice and all. But it indicates that you don't even acknowledge that you actually did anything wrong even when I've pointed out the precise thing that bothered me. And, no, I'm not playing the victim. As I said, it's a free country. You can say what you want. Something you ignored.

Yup.

I think that is an individual choice based on individual conditions. To say a blanket statement is not really taking into account a LOT of variables. I think you may have confused your concept of what I've stated with what I actually stated in the past. I said that I have a medical condition that makes it unfavorable for ME to take many vaccines. If other people want to get a vaccine, that's fine by me. But because you don't agree with my medical exemption, you think I'm anti-vax, and proceed to shame and ridicule me. It's a free country. You can do that.

Depends on the vaccine. If they came out with an AIDS vaccine tomorrow, I'd be kinda skeptical.

Who said I was anti-vaxx? I was just sharing an article that had some interesting information on the topic.

What a piece of work is man.

https://www.nj.com/coronavirus/2021/07/49-people-who-were-fully-vaccinated-have-died-of-covid-in-nj-heres-what-we-know.html

As I said, most scholarships are transferrable... unless... you're really saying...

When values are mixed up like this, it is no wonder why there are so many efforts to say, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. All's well in Babylon."

Whenever something unexpected happens, too often people cry out "why?" or "that's not fair!" What I'm sitting here wondering is "What are her alternatives?" The university already suggested she attend another Church School. She said it was her "dream school". I have no idea why BYU-H would be more preferable than BYU-P as far as academics except for particular fields of study -- even then it's almost a wash. When dealing with a private university, as Vort says, they have a right to require this. And she has the right to go to another school if she disagrees with the policy. So, why doesn't she? Why hasn't she looked into the other schools? I read that her scholarships are now "gone". I've never heard of that. Most scholarships are transferable. So, why is that even a factor? How on earth did she even get $200k in scholarships for a school whose tuition is only 1/20th that? Is she planning on attending while living in a 4 star hotel? What's the deal? Why is THAT particular school so important that she's raising this stink? Has anyone even bothered to ask these questions? I haven't read it in my limited exposure to this story. I'd bet Provo would bend over backwards to help her get in to Provo just because of the situation she's in. But she's stuck in this victim mindset so far that she's not even trying to figure this out.

I don't see how this is any different than when we were required to get various immunizations as a child to attend public school. Note the bold. It seems that BYU-H doesn't accept the exemption. But as others said, Hawaii is Hawaii.

The day ain't over yet But seriously, folks... I don't believe it's ending in three hours either. But your Vox link doesn't really mean much. Most of those measures aren't as important as you seem to think. The fact that fertility is decreasing is considered a positive? Why? Literacy increasing? Measured how? I'll grant that more people can read. But read well? And what do they read? How many people in first world countries have even opened a classic, much less read it? Senior law students don't even read the Federalist Papers. I could go on. But I'll sum up with: Yes, some things are getting better. Some are not. But the biggest point here is that in both your previous post as this one that I quoted is that you're not taking into account the eternal scheme. How many people are coming to know Christ? How many people are changing their lives because of that fact? How are interpersonal relationships getting better because of how we treat each other? How is the strength of the family in this era? How many people spend their lives in service to others rather than for their own gain? I honestly don't know the answers to these questions. And further I don't know how anyone would be able to gather such statistics. What kind of questions would you even ask? How could we even verify the answers? Maybe strength of the family is something that could at least be close to verifiable. Without really having such data, it sure seems like more and more people are going away from God+family, and more towards their own gain at the cost of others. Think about the pride-prosperity cycle. Did all those Vox numbers really help the Nephites spirituality? No, it hurt it. And I find it interesting what side of that you seem to have come down on. I'm not saying that the world will end in the next year or five years. But to say that the REALLY IMPORTANT things are getting better in this world??? You're entitled to your opinion. But... well... I'm not seeing it.

In some ways I agree, others I don't. But I can't seem to reconcile this attitude with your earlier statement that "we'll be fine for at least another 500 years."

The Church and Political Activism. Politics is downstream of culture. The Church's culture is made up of families. We do the most good in society when we spend our time and energy on raising our children to know the word of God, and have faith in and a testimony of The Atonement of Christ. The Book of Mormon as the word of God. The spiritual hospital that is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Sunday School presidency recently went around to families in our ward and asked the following questions: Is your family actually reading the Come Follow Me manual and doing the extra little things that it instructs us to do? Is your family reading and studying the D&C and answering the questions that the manual asks? Is your family reading the Book of Mormon daily? The results were astoundingly awful. Very few even opened CFM. Very few read the assignment. Almost no one was reading the BoM daily (or even close to daily). A reasonable number were reading the scriptures "sometimes" outside of Church. Do we really hope to change the world through political activism if we continue to "treated lightly the things which we have received"?

@Traveler Please understand that I have a lot of respect for you. But you often misread things so badly that I wonder if we're in the same conversation. I'm doing the following because I know you're being sincere. And I have enough respect for you that I'm willing to go through the extra effort to clarify my position to you. I wouldn't be willing to go through this effort if it were anyone else. That may be what you're attempting to do. But it is actually about insight into the strawman you've constructed. Consider the following conversation as a parallel. Traveler: I enjoy biking. It's my preferred method of exercise to preserve good health. But even I don't think we should be biking 8 hours a day. Carb: Why don't you like exercise? Haven't you been taught that exercise is important for you cardiovascular system? T: Yes, I'm aware. And I do it regularly. But there's a limit to the quantity that one should be doing. And there is a question of the appropriate time and place. C: I still don't get why you don't like exercising, and biking in particular. I'd do it all the time, if I had the time for it. T: Doing it too much will do more harm than good. You need to ration it out to get the "proper" exercise. C: I am still concerned about why you don't exercise at all. T: I said I exercise. I exercise more than most. And I believe my life and quality of life has been extended because of it. But you still shouldn't be exercising THAT much. C: I'm sorry that you feel that way. One day I hope you'll understand that you can have a more healthy life if you'd just exercise. Take a moment to consider this and the parallels with the conversation we've been having. Now: I'll repeat my position. 1) It is absolutely imperative that a child's up-bringing and education include exposure to new ideas -- especially ideas they may disagree with. Understood? Got it? it is IMPERATIVE that this happen. 2) It is also imperative that education include the understanding of the difference between facts and opinions; the concept of "ideologies" and "propaganda" vs. "established truth." 3) There should be no punishment or bonus to agree or disagree with ideologies. 4) It is imperative that such discussions should NOT be about finding the truth of those positions. It should be about how well we communicate our positions, and how well we can support, defend, or refute a position. 4) Teachers should be allowed enough academic freedom to speak ideologies (WITHIN THEIR DISCIPLINE) as long as there is no academic consequence when students disagree. 5) Teachers should be very careful in the format of how ideologies (especially controversial ones) are discussed in class. 6) Some ideologies are "toxic" which should be strictly avoided. See below. There are two points I'd like to make regarding these 6 points. 1) Teachers have our children 8 hours or more per day. Parents are lucky if they get that much (aside from sleeping hours). If teachers are constantly teaching them ideas that parents consider wrong, what chance do parents have of correcting any ideologies that they find incorrect? I'm only asking for equal time. If the only exposure students get is maybe an hour or two, and all the rest is plain old 2+2=4, then ok. Parents should be able to work with this. But if they are getting inundated with it all day long, there's no hope of parents really raising their kids. The school is doing the raising. 2) We need to be aware of "Toxic" ideologies. And I would welcome discussion of such only in a VERY controlled environment where people have metaphorical hazmat suits to handle it. We use the word "Toxic" too often and it has lost meaning. So, I need to define it clearly. Toxic ideology: An ideology which poisons creativity, individual thinking, enthusiasm, self-esteem, optimism, autonomy, creativity, and clear communication/expression. And I believe that CRT fits that bill. It tells whites that all of society's ills are on their heads. It tells minority races that "the man" is keeping them down. And there is no hope to get out of their bad situation. It tells everyone that it is based on race - something they have no control over and cannot change -- no hope. Thus, I don't see a positive use for this ideology even if it were true. Feminism also has some parallels in this vein. Too often, these ideas are not taught as an ideology to be discussed, but they are taught as a matter of fact that the students need to accept or they will face academic and social consequences. ONCE AGAIN: I have NO problem with having open discussion of ideas. I have a problem with the format and the quantity. And it will be a rare teacher and a rare classroom where toxic ideas are discussed in an open format with NO prejudice or NO academic / social consequences for disagreeing. Yes, it happens. Of course it does. But it is RARE.

That is much more clear. Thank you.

Deflect. Straw man. I never said they didn't. In fact I said just the opposite. If you want to actually have a conversation with ME, then have a conversation with ME, not a strawman of your own design.

I spent some time thinking about any other examples from my diet. I couldn't really think of one because, I guess, it's all just "normal" for me. I also had Starburst Tea some time ago. I asked my wife if she could think of anything, and she said,"I try not to think about all the weird things you eat or else I'll go crazy." But she mentioned that I tend to put hot sauce or kim chee on a whole lot of stuff that "really shouldn't have any kind of spice in it." But I'll try to keep a log going forward... for posterity.

This is a whole lot of double speak that relies on the conflation of "mail-in" with "early voting". Either that or you really need to re-word this. It really makes no sense to use this as an explanation for the claims in Maricopa County. Did you want to re-word this?

No, we're not talking about two different things. You're just setting up a straw man. I'm all for OPEN EXCHANGE OF IDEAS. I'm all for OPEN DISCUSSION of dissenting opinions. I am NOT for some adult other than a child's parents having power and authority over a child threatening that child with expulsion and academic failure if he doesn't believe the ideologies that differ from the parents. Extreme cases of abuse can be brought up, certainly. But what we're talking about is not an extreme case or an exception. We're talking about the standard business as usual. Just to emphasize how much I'm all for open discussion of differing ideas: My English teacher (Mr. Kopacki) whom I have praised so often on this forum, certainly didn't have a favorable opinion of Mormons. But the fact was that any mention of religion in that classroom was not about a power play or failure or success in the class. It was about having a discussion. I was about our ability to express our opinions and explain things with logic. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS. IF YOU THINK I EVER SAID OR BELIEVED ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY YOU'RE PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH. I have a problem when teachers are using schooling in math, science, English, foreign language, history, etc. as a forum to promote radical ideologies, and then threaten children with failing grades and social ostracizing (cancel culture) if they don't agree with such ideologies.

DISCLAIMER: I'm about to go far into the field of speculation and a Star Trek multiverse mentality. This is in no way a declaration of doctrine, nor can I back this up with any doctrine I'm aware of. But if this were true, it would explain an awful lot. Postulates: God can see the perfect outcome of our lives provided all the variables at the moment of our birth. God can see multiple outcomes based on certain interventions by man or Divinity or seemingly random acts of nature. Given infinite initial variables and infinite interventions, He is able so see just how far anyone can go because of their initial nature as pre-spirit-embodied intelligences. I would then theorize/hypothesize that in some multiverse setting, There are some people who will only be able to go so far even given the most favorable conditions. There are some people who will only fall so far even given the worst possible conditions. In some universe, everyone is given the opportunity to go as far as they can possibly go given the right circumstances. In some other universe(s), everyone also knows just how far they can fall given the wrong circumstances. Because of these infinite experiences, we all know our eternal destiny is perfectly justified. Those who are exalted can know how best to succor future generations in the eternities.

When I was a kid, I did everything I could to mask the flavor of various veggies that I did not like. So, I'd mix in my veggies into ANYTHING that I thought had a pleasant and powerful enough flavor to cover the smell/taste of the vegetables. Just recently I had some creamy peanut butter on the shelf and I saw a bunch of strawberries fresh from the store. I was picturing chocolate covered strawberries. I thought of reese's peanut butter cups. And... Srawberries dipped in creamy peanut butter. It was pretty good.

You're sharp. (see what I did there? cheese... ah-hem.) Yes, I did try it during the halloween aftermath one year. No. The flavors were fine (for me. See below). But the textures did not mix well. Remember that chocolate has some oils/grease in it. Kim chee is a water based food. So, the two... But years later I noticed in a Korean market the confectionary area had a display of kim chee flavored chocolate. Didn't buy it. I only saw it for about a month. I haven't seen it since. So, I'm guessing it did not sell well.