zil2

I'm waiting for Trump's address to congress next Tuesday. If it's meaningless jabber, then I might worry. If it's naming names and shouting sins from the rooftops, then we'll know things are continuing to move forward. I can imagine good reasons for things to ebb and flow.

I recommend the following video, or to shorten in the extreme, "praise verbs, not adjectives": Or the short version:

Said shirts would clearly mean that I'm first and TFP is second. Whether being first or second is better really depends on at what?

Yes!

The Children's Songbook has a song about popcorn popping on an apricot tree. At the end of my post are the lyrics (which I'll note here are copyright IRI - that is, the Church owns the song). There is absolutely nothing in this song that is remotely1 related to Christ, the gospel, the Church, religion, etc. And yet, there it is (and many others like it in said songbook - aptly named, since it's clearly not a hymnbook). Now, I'll note here that the new book is called Hymns—For Home and Church. Here's a quote from the intro: Now, English being what it is, I'm not sure whether they're really saying that [each and every song is appropriate for all three uses] (I disagree, but I'm nobody) or whether they're saying that [there are some songs available for each of the three uses] (I agree). It sounds more like the first, but I can't be certain. Regardless, there's folks who choose which of numerous hymns to sing and I'll bet there are many that any given ward has never sung in its entire history. With luck, those folks who do the selecting allow themselves to be guided by the Spirit in their selections for sacrament meetings. Regardless, I think one should take these things into account when pondering the new songs. Perhaps wait to get upset until you actually see the hymn number up on the [whatever that thing on the wall is called where they put the hymn numbers]. (After a search, it's called a "hymn board".) Popcorn is not popping on your apricot tree, but your (grand)children will likely love the idea, so let them sing this: 1Unless you wish to point out Christ is the creator and without Him there would be neither popcorn nor apricot trees, nor anything else in this song, nevermind the person who wrote it or organization that owns it.... But I think you know what I meant. For the record, I'd be perfectly happy if they'd stopped at #1001 "Come, Thou Fount of Every Blessing", but whatever. (I am slightly upset that they appear to have started their hymns with #1001 rather than #1000 - I mean, that's just backwards. All lists should start with item 0, not item 1. (I get that the first three characters are just to distinguish the new hymns from the old, so I'm ignoring those and focusing on the relevant digit.) Still, it's not too late to redeem themselves and give us hymn #1000 - though it is too late to do the right thing and put "Come, Thou Fount of Every Blessing" in it's appropriate first (aka zeroth) position.)

It would not be impolite, mean, or insulting if we are asking you to do so. And the mods could hardly complain if you did as we asked and did it in a polite fashion. You believe people here are worshiping Trump. I'm certain no one else even understands why you think people here are worshiping Trump. As members of the Church, we know what idol worship means in the modern world. We recognize that things like ditching Church to watch Sunday sports would constitute idol worship; skipping tithing this year so I can buy a $4000 fountain pen would be idol worship. We get the concept. So how is it that we're worshiping Trump and yet unaware? Would it not be a blessing to us to understand so that we might change? You can help us to understand by quoting a passage of text (better to quote as little as needed rather than the whole post), and saying something like: "This sentence sounds to me like worshiping Trump, because [blah blah blah]. If you don't worship Trump, can you explain to me [blah blah blah]?" In this way, you explain your understanding without accusation and ask for someone to engage with you toward mutual understanding. No offense, no contention, just seeking mutual understanding. Now if you think we won't listen, or can't learn, then why publicly condemn us at all? It does no one an ounce of good.

We don't entirely disagree with you: The Lord appears to use the word "church" in two ways: one to mean The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Church), and the other to mean those who repent and come unto Christ (the church). Some Latter-day Saints might disagree with me, but I think this is similar to "the body of Christ" idea found in the New Testament that a lot of Christians cite. Where we diverge from other Christians is in the idea that the Church doesn't matter, as long as you're of the church. The church is a starting point to us - a good place to be if you know nothing more. But the Church is where you want to be headed. Also, just yesterday I saw evidence of something @Vort taught us on here long ago: Christ's sheep know His voice. Our job isn't to convince them, it's to let them hear His voice. (I read the account online of an investigator who felt overwhelmed by the Spirit just holding the Book of Mormon - clearly one of His sheep. Which isn't to say that all of His sheep recognize His voice the way this person did; it's simply an extreme example.) On an unrelated note: I'm glad you're still with us, @Jamie123 (as opposed to being tossed in jail). I hear some pretty scary things about the UK speech-police and consequences of uncontrolled immigration there these days.

Anyone who's already logged in can just go to Account Settings to see their email address.

I'm sorry I ever posted. Going away for a while.

Lessons in my ward are filled with the Spirit, but they mostly remain at the unendowed level, IMO. And there's no shortage of people who have no one to talk to at home. And for whatever reason, in my experience, no one has the time or interest to dive deep into the gospel outside of Church meetings. Perhaps they're remembering the days when home / personal study groups were strongly discouraged. Or maybe they're just busy because they're trying to have everything the Church offers and everything the world offers, so there's no time for more study. I don't know. Manuals only take you so far. And before suggesting I discuss such things online - been there, tried that. Even this forum is more interested in extended discussion sports and politics than in joining together to dive into the same gospel topic, so that gospel discussions here also tend to stay on the surface. Like I said, be thankful for your blessings.

You're most welcome! Amen, but why can't the manuals point out temple references? Why do we never discuss them in class and share our own recognitions? "Well, there are unendowed members in the class." Yeah, well, they're on the internet, too, so get over it! Intrigue them. Leave them wanting to understand. Bring back the Gospel Essentials class for newbies and lift Gospel Doctrine to the next level. Or make a new Gospel Doctrine 201 class and split the members. Whatever.

Someone somewhere referenced the video I'll put below. It talks about the Book of Abraham and temple ordinances (specifically in ancient Egypt). How long must we wait for people to "catch up" with the gospel before we can learn like this in Sunday School? I don't necessarily mean the historic, Egyptian temple rites, but finding the temple rites in scripture! Our manuals are all watered down to the weakest of the saints - the ones who show up at Church and do little more as far as I can tell. Every time someone points me to something like this, I lament that it wasn't being taught in Church 10 years earlier... Thankfully, I've been coming across more and more things like this online - faithful things, not whacked out extreme stretches to force some pet idea into the gospel. It's very frustrating to me. You fortunate people can watch them with spouse and old-enough children and have discussions with them. Klaw and Smoke just look at me and have nothing helpful to add... This is why I wish Church were still 3 hours - or better, 4! (Not that it would matter - see my first lament.) Be grateful for your blessings. Also, watch this video:

Do you know for a fact that he did? Did you communicate with him and confirm he did? Seriously, send an email from yours with the . to yours without the . and see what happens. Or did someone type "neurotypical" when they should have typed "neurotypicals"? Or did he have the address before you did and cancelled it and now you're getting contacted by people who don't know better? (Sounds like not, but still...) Why did people keep leaving messages on my answering machine asking about fireplaces and woodburning stoves? That year, I'd had my phone number for 20-22 years (I forget which year it was, but it was around COVID). Clearly someone in some ad had made a type-o (too many people called for it to be the caller mistyping the phone number).

No. If you have [email protected] as your email address, you will get email sent to [email protected] and to any variation with dots scattered about in it: Neurotypic.al N.euro.t.ypical N.e.u.r.o.t.y.p.i.c.a.l. etc. ...all yours. The key factor is that when you remove all the dots (which apparently is what google do), it spells out NeuroTypical (not case sensitive). So the email you got which should have gone to someone else must have been intended to go to, for example, Neurotypical2@g... Or NeuroTypica1@g... (1 instead of L at the end), or some other variation with more than dots to distinguish it. Make sense? ETA: Important distinction: Apparently when companies choose to use gmail as their corporate email, there's some special setup which keeps the dots and distinguishes by them. So if your gmail address technically belongs to (or was set up by) your company, then it may be an exception to this rule.

And for some stupid reason, I never thought to test it. I'm about to send an email to myself without the . in the address.... Ha! It worked. Now I'm tempted to use the version with a . in some places and the version without the . in other places, just as a mechanism to distinguish who, if anyone, shares my email address. (Of course, almost no one knows my gmail address - I've never gotten a drop of spam in it, so this test really won't reveal anything. Nevermind. Move along. Nothing to see here.)

Check out this: https://support.google.com/mail/answer/7436150?hl=en#:~:text=to integrated Gmail-,Dots don't matter in Gmail addresses,ll still get that email. My gmail address has a . in it and when I signed up (in 2011), I got a schpiel to this effect.

I've forgotten my own address. I have to think about it or look it up. (I blame one of my pen pals in the UK - the one who has my real address rather than my PO box - he keeps getting my address slightly wrong - mixing up the zip code or the house number, or both. Thankfully, he's never accidentally put an incorrect but otherwise valid address, so the PO are forced to try to figure out what he should have written, and his letters always make it to me. But then I see the house number jumbled and I'm like, "Wait, what's the right order?" )

A reason to use your fountain pen!

I disagree. You did all the right things - the email claims to be from BYU, yet the domain is not BYU's. You could also have looked at the other domains in the header and would have rightly been suspicious about "sparkpostmail.com" with its meaningless letters and numbers in front. The full header might have held even more suspicious looking servers through which the email passed. You're also right to not let images load automatically in email. IMO, it's better to dismiss it as spam than to assume it's OK. The only thing you did wrong (and even that is only if you're interested in participating in this alumni business) is to not manually go to the URL and / or look up this publishingconcepts.com (not by going to the URL, unless you really have your browser locked down so it can't run scripts), but by doing a web search to see if it looks legit or suspicious. Would that every person on the planet were as suspicious as you - scammers would have go back to knocking door to door or doing "surveys" in grocery store parking lots.

There's a fair chance that PublishingConcepts.com are a company hired by BYU (you could contact them directly and ask). As to the mile-long link - I can't see the domain, but those are almost always redirects via a tracker so they can determine how successful their emailing campaign is. Rather than clicking the link, I always copy and paste the actual URL from the text (if I go at all), and in the browser that I keep locked down like Fort Knox (no scripting allowed, anti-tracking plug-in, etc. etc.). The following URL goes where it says (unless ThirdHour has started adding tracking to URLs in comments): https://alumni.byu.edu/oral-history-project From that page: FWIW. But you are right to be suspicious!

This is a highly undervalued activity!

Well, that's absurd. Thank you! This fits in nicely with what Elder Holland said, and is what I was hoping to find - insight that makes the comparison between the two activities seem less jarring to me. Even an activity such as translating or studying scripture, done well, involves physical action in addition to the use of intelligence. Now, if only the spirit of revelation would help me translate what Klaw is yeowling about...

If that talk was 20 years ago, I'm way, way too old! Cast Not Away Therefore Your Confidence And thank you! He does indeed ask the exact question I'm asking (and presumably answer it - I stopped there to come write my thanks. Going back to read now. PS: apparently I'm way, way too old.) reading... Elder Holland is hilarious! If you (generic) want all of Elder Holland's answer to my question, you'll need to go read the article, it's multiple paragraphs long. And since it's Elder Holland, it's worth the read. You're the best, @Just_A_Guy!

Brief had a different meaning before the interwebs.

This is excellent. I should have thought harder.