Harry Reid memorial service: Chuck Schumer quotes 2 Nephi

[NeuroTypical 9958]

Both Bidens, VP Harris & hubby, and the Obamas were in attendance.

 

He gets political after those comments, but how interesting to hear them!

Edited January 10 by NeuroTypical

[Just_A_Guy 12683]

President Ballard was the first speaker, I believe.

[Traveler 4241]

It is my understanding that Senator Harry Reid is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in "Good" standing.

 

The Traveler

[NeuroTypical 9958]

Well, he was a member in good standing.  He died ya know...

[LDSGator 711]

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

It is my understanding that Senator Harry Reid is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in "Good" standing.

 

The Traveler

A bishop up north was a former democratic congressmen. Without question one of the kindest and most spirt filled men you’ll ever meet.  So politics isn’t the issue. 

[mirkwood 3675]

6 hours ago, LDSGator said:

A bishop up north was a former democratic congressmen. Without question one of the kindest and most spirt filled men you’ll ever meet.  So politics isn’t the issue. 

You mean political party affiliation isn't the issue.  Politics can most definitely be the issue.

[Traveler 4241]

On 1/17/2022 at 6:52 PM, mirkwood said:

You mean political party affiliation isn't the issue.  Politics can most definitely be the issue.

Surprise, surprise - we can find kind hearted, G-d fearing people in all sorts or places - despite political affiliation or career choices.   Realizing that there are always exceptions to the norm.

 

the Traveler

[Vort 17310]

Harry Reid's spiritual state is between Harry Reid and God. I cannot know and refuse to speculate on another man's standing before God. I have my own to worry about, and that of those I love most and over whom I have some special responsibility.

But speaking in general terms, I am hard-pressed to understand how a man can proclaim his devotion under covenant to principles of truth, then openly and even proudly defy the truth for political advantage, even to the point of openly stating regarding his lies, "Well, he lost, didn't he?", with no intrinsic damage to his own soul and still stand white and spotless before God.

If I were to believe such a thing, it would deeply and negatively affect my beliefs about sin and repentance. So I overtly disbelieve it.

But I'm happy to leave the specifics of the application of such judgment to any given man between that man and his Savior.

[Traveler 4241]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Harry Reid's spiritual state is between Harry Reid and God. I cannot know and refuse to speculate on another man's standing before God. I have my own to worry about, and that of those I love most and over whom I have some special responsibility.

But speaking in general terms, I am hard-pressed to understand how a man can proclaim his devotion under covenant to principles of truth, then openly and even proudly defy the truth for political advantage, even to the point of openly stating regarding his lies, "Well, he lost, didn't he?", with no intrinsic damage to his own soul and still stand white and spotless before God.

If I were to believe such a thing, it would deeply and negatively affect my beliefs about sin and repentance. So I overtly disbelieve it.

But I'm happy to leave the specifics of the application of such judgment to any given man between that man and his Savior.

I just finished reading the Church publication Saints Volume 2.  It was somewhat of a surprise to learn that historically the "Saints" have had great problems with the Republican party beginning with President Lincoln.  As bad as I have thought the Democrats have trampled on the rights and liberties of US citizens - it does not hold a candle to what the Republican party has done to thwart religious freedoms pointed directly at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  In the past I was under the impressions that president Lincoln was somewhat sympathetic towards our early church.  I now wonder if the L-rd allowed the assignation of Lincoln as a means to preserve the Church.

In general - I personally distrust anyone with strong political party ties but I have thought that if there is any degree of one party being a better party (more reflective to preserve freedoms and liberties) I have thought it more likely to be something of interest to the Republican party.  The more I learn of the insides of political parties the more I dislike them - and this is in contrast to my father that was a strong and powerful Republican party member.

I do not know how Harry Reid could conform to the Democrat party and remain loyal to his covenants - but then I also has very big issues with Senator Orrin Hatch.  I do not know why either was allowed to have photo opps with general authorities. 

But then the Church goes through great lengths to be politically neutral.   I try to follow that example but more often than not I end up feeling that I am not being honest with myself (especially concerning prominent Democrats).  I seriously believe that Jesus will do away with political parties when he returns. 

 

The Traveler

[JohnsonJones 2253]

3 hours ago, Vort said:

Harry Reid's spiritual state is between Harry Reid and God. I cannot know and refuse to speculate on another man's standing before God. I have my own to worry about, and that of those I love most and over whom I have some special responsibility.

But speaking in general terms, I am hard-pressed to understand how a man can proclaim his devotion under covenant to principles of truth, then openly and even proudly defy the truth for political advantage, even to the point of openly stating regarding his lies, "Well, he lost, didn't he?", with no intrinsic damage to his own soul and still stand white and spotless before God.

If I were to believe such a thing, it would deeply and negatively affect my beliefs about sin and repentance. So I overtly disbelieve it.

But I'm happy to leave the specifics of the application of such judgment to any given man between that man and his Savior.

This is an interesting take on the matter.  It raises a question in my head regarding Reid and others that may be in a similar boat that are also Saints in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

We have a TON of Saints during the recent pandemic that have

1.  Disagreed with the Prophet not only not followed him in what he asked us to do, worse, taught directly the opposite of what he asked.

2.  Some of the above went beyond this and even called him and certain apostles very slanderous and negative things with much cursing and nasty language on social media

3.  Disagreed (or is that lying, in relation to how one may say Reid lied) with Experts trained specifically in the field dealing with disease and pandemics, experts of medicine, and experts in science on the dangers of the pandemic or how to deal with the pandemic.

4.  Continued to spread false information regarding treatment, severity, and mitigation of the pandemic even when a preponderance of evidence and the medical establishment were telling them the truth.

Now, from much of what I've seen occurring via media (thus it could be mistaken about such things as well), most places in Utah now have a majority of people refusing to wear masks or social distance even during the most recent surge, and a great majority in church wards are not wearing masks or doing what the prophet asked them to do currently (as if his requests for us to do such in August has expired just because they decided they wanted it to expire [and if he DID say it was over...if someone would actually POST that it would be appreciated because thus far I haven't seen it].  Of course, if I hadn't made this clear, this is not necessarily what is happening, just what I hear is happening in certain areas according to children and grandchildren I have in the areas and have seen on clips of the areas via various media.  It could just be anecdotal rather than accurate, but I haven't seen anything to counter it thus far.  Recent news clips from the area seem to show very little mask wearing in many locations).

If you feel that way about Harry Reid, what are your feelings about what appears to be a majority of the Saints in the Utah Valley area in this instance.

Edited January 20 by JohnsonJones

[Vort 17310]

23 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

If you feel that way about Harry Reid, what are your feelings about what appears to be a majority of the Saints in the Utah Valley area in this instance.

I believe I made it abundantly clear that I do not know and refuse to speculate on Harry Reid's spiritual state. Maybe a careful rereading of what I wrote will help.

[Just_A_Guy 12683]

3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

This is an interesting take on the matter.  It raises a question in my head regarding Reid and others that may be in a similar boat that are also Saints in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

We have a TON of Saints during the recent pandemic that have

1.  Disagreed with the Prophet not only not followed him in what he asked us to do, worse, taught directly the opposite of what he asked.

2.  Some of the above went beyond this and even called him and certain apostles very slanderous and negative things with much cursing and nasty language on social media

3.  Disagreed (or is that lying, in relation to how one may say Reid lied) with Experts trained specifically in the field dealing with disease and pandemics, experts of medicine, and experts in science on the dangers of the pandemic or how to deal with the pandemic.

4.  Continued to spread false information regarding treatment, severity, and mitigation of the pandemic even when a preponderance of evidence and the medical establishment were telling them the truth.

Now, from much of what I've seen occurring via media (thus it could be mistaken about such things as well), most places in Utah now have a majority of people refusing to wear masks or social distance even during the most recent surge, and a great majority in church wards are not wearing masks or doing what the prophet asked them to do currently (as if his requests for us to do such in August has expired just because they decided they wanted it to expire [and if he DID say it was over...if someone would actually POST that it would be appreciated because thus far I haven't seen it].  Of course, if I hadn't made this clear, this is not necessarily what is happening, just what I hear is happening in certain areas according to children and grandchildren I have in the areas and have seen on clips of the areas via various media.  It could just be anecdotal rather than accurate, but I haven't seen anything to counter it thus far.  Recent news clips from the area seem to show very little mask wearing in many locations).

If you feel that way about Harry Reid, what are your feelings about what appears to be a majority of the Saints in the Utah Valley area in this instance.

I’ll bite.

I, living in Utah Valley, have seen a lot of what you describe; and it bothers me.  I think a lot of folks are making poor choices and, if they continue in those veins, are going to find themselves in a state of rebellion that they never thought possible.  At least from my admittedly limited vantage point, this particular wing of . . . erm . . . conservatism [gag], seems to be in a fair way to create a bigger wedge between the Church leadership and membership in two years, than the libertines and abortionists and race-baiters were able to create in the previous twenty.   

I would also note, though, that the vast majority of anti-maskers are not so much deceivers as deceived (in some cases, rendered especially vulnerable to such deceit by the apparent failure [and occasional patent bad faith] of institutions that we previously relied upon to tell us the truth; and in nearly all cases buried in a deluge of highly technical data that relatively few in our society have the training it takes to collate and draw inferences about in a reliable way).

By contrast, Reid was not merely deceived in parroting his claim about Romney’s taxes; he created the deception.  He didn’t care if he was telling the truth or not; the antivaxxers and antimaskers do at least care.

Edited January 21 by Just_A_Guy

[mirkwood 3675]

5 hours ago, Traveler said:

I seriously believe that Jesus will do away with political parties when he returns. 

 

When he returns, the Kingdom of God is a theocracy, headed by our savior.

[Traveler 4241]

15 hours ago, mirkwood said:

When he returns, the Kingdom of God is a theocracy, headed by our savior.

I am under the impression that Jesus will return as a King and law provider.

 

The Traveler

[LDSGator 711]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

I am under the impression that Jesus will return as a King and law provider.

 

The Traveler

I think His return and how He will rule is beyond human comprehension. Like most of us here, I believe and hope He will return, but I don’t know the details of it.

I’m very confident though that those of us who make it there will be stunned and humbled by who we also see there, and who we don’t see. 

[Vort 17310]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

16 hours ago, mirkwood said:

When he returns, the Kingdom of God is a theocracy, headed by our savior.

I am under the impression that Jesus will return as a King and law provider.

And here I am, thinking that Christ will rule and reign over those who remain. How strange that we three should have such utterly different understandings of what will happen. I wonder which of us is right? Or maybe we're all wrong together.

[LDSGator 711]

19 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

least from my admittedly limited vantage point, this particular wing of . . . erm . . . conservatism [gag], seems to be in a fair way to create a bigger wedge between the Church leadership and membership in two years, than the libertines and abortionists 

Civil wars have always been more brutal and intense than other ones. The GOP is learning that now in the battle between Trumpers and traditional conservatives. 

[Traveler 4241]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

And here I am, thinking that Christ will rule and reign over those who remain. How strange that we three should have such utterly different understandings of what will happen. I wonder which of us is right? Or maybe we're all wrong together.

good to talk to you.  Just as a clarification - all things that G-d resides over are referenced in the scriptures as "Kingdoms" - including the "kingdoms" of glory in the resurrection.  It is my understanding that all societies of this world (except that which is sealed by the Holy Ghost) are corrupted and will have an end and will not endure.  If re rely on our understanding of governments of this world from which to draw a comparison - I believe the comparison will be lacking.  It is hard for me to realize how citizens of a kingdom will be free and have liberty - but I think that in the restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that we have possibly the best example.

 

The Traveler

[mirkwood 3675]

3 hours ago, Vort said:

And here I am, thinking that Christ will rule and reign over those who remain. How strange that we three should have such utterly different understandings of what will happen. I wonder which of us is right? Or maybe we're all wrong together.

I was speaking in regards to the New Jerusalem.  If you have a copy of The Coming of the Lord by Gerald Lund, he writes quite a bit on the topic in one of the chapters.

[Vort 17310]

...please delete...

Edited January 22 by Vort

[Vort 17310]

3 hours ago, mirkwood said:

I was speaking in regards to the New Jerusalem.  If you have a copy of The Coming of the Lord by Gerald Lund, he writes quite a bit on the topic in one of the chapters.

I was joking. Traveler's response to your statement seemed almost a restatement of your words, so I thought I'd give yet another restatement and remark on how different all our near-identical answers were.

[The Folk Prophet 7750]

On 1/20/2022 at 5:16 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

I would also note, though, that the vast majority of anti-maskers are not so much deceivers as deceived (in some cases, rendered especially vulnerable to such deceit by the apparent failure [and occasional patent bad faith] of institutions that we previously relied upon to tell us the truth; and in nearly all cases buried in a deluge of highly technical data that relatively few in our society have the training it takes to collate and draw inferences about in a reliable way).

I'm not quite sure how to parse this. Anti-maskers are deceived into thinking masks don't work?

I'm a pretty rabid anti-masker myself. Don't get me wrong...I wear one in meetings when I can't socially distance. Because I believe in obedience.

But here's what reason tells me: If I had the right mask and could, actually, wear it properly (washing hands first, applying a fresh, sanitary mask properly, and then leaving it alone the entire time I wore it), then...it still wouldn't do me any good in church because I have a 2 young children. If someone has the virus in church, what logic tells me, is that it's getting spread. My kids are touching stuff -- nay -- licking stuff. And they're ripping my mask off. And etc., etc. And I don't wear the right mask. Who does? And even if I did...others don't. And then..., you know, I don't wear it properly (how can I with children clawing at my face?, and I pull it down for the Sacrament, which lets the germs out/in as I touch the trays where other people are  eating from...and  etc., etc., etc.)

And all that has nothing to do with what the institutions of science say and don't say. Throw in that side of things and my rebellion against "the science" in that particular thing is complete.

So am I deceived in my anti-masking attitude? Shrug.

Nevertheless, I will wear one in church meetings when I can't socially distance. I will follow the prophet. But no way am I putting on that stupid face diaper to meaninglessly virtue signal elsewhere.

But I'll tell you what, some of the best, most honorable, intelligent, obedient, good people in my ward are some who have decided that wearing a mask in church isn't the path for them. I don't think I'll judge them. (I'm not saying you are judging...I just wondered wherein the conclusion stems from that those who, in my opinion, have very reasonable views on masks and the inefficacy of the practice are "deceived")

[LDSGator 711]

31 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

But I'll tell you what, some of the best, most honorable, intelligent, obedient, good people in my ward are some who have decided that wearing a mask in church isn't the path for them

You make an interesting point. Everyone seems to talk about the sheep who wear masks and the selfish jerks who don’t, but in reality, some of the best people I know wear a mask-and some of the best people I know don’t. Humans are vastly more complex than we give them credit for. 

Edited January 22 by LDSGator

[Just_A_Guy 12683]

15 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm not quite sure how to parse this. Anti-maskers are deceived into thinking masks don't work?

I'm a pretty rabid anti-masker myself. Don't get me wrong...I wear one in meetings when I can't socially distance. Because I believe in obedience.

[1]But here's what reason tells me: If I had the right mask and could, actually, wear it properly (washing hands first, applying a fresh, sanitary mask properly, and then leaving it alone the entire time I wore it), then...it still wouldn't do me any good in church because I have a 2 young children. If someone has the virus in church, what logic tells me, is that it's getting spread. My kids are touching stuff -- nay -- licking stuff. And they're ripping my mask off. And etc., etc. And I don't wear the right mask. Who does? And even if I did...others don't. And then..., you know, I don't wear it properly (how can I with children clawing at my face?, and I pull it down for the Sacrament, which lets the germs out/in as I touch the trays where other people are  eating from...and  etc., etc., etc.)

And all that has nothing to do with what the institutions of science say and don't say. Throw in that side of things and my rebellion against "the science" in that particular thing is complete.

So am I deceived in my anti-masking attitude? Shrug.

[2]Nevertheless, I will wear one in church meetings when I can't socially distance. I will follow the prophet. But no way am I putting on that stupid face diaper to meaninglessly virtue signal elsewhere.

But I'll tell you what, some of the best, most honorable, intelligent, obedient, good people in my ward are some who have decided that wearing a mask in church isn't the path for them. I don't think I'll judge them. (I'm not saying you are judging...I just wondered wherein the conclusion stems from that those who, in my opinion, have very reasonable views on masks and the inefficacy of the practice are "deceived")

1.  I would respectfully submit that this is too absolutist a position to take.  A more accurate position is that during the periods when they are used properly, masks partially work (with “work”, in this case, defined as “limit the wearer’s ability to spread disease”—I think it’s been common knowledge for over a year now that mask don’t significantly protect the wearer).  People on both sides talk about masking as if it’s supposed to be some sort of mystical rite that if used at all renders one wholly invincible for a day (or, by contrast, renders one essentially “infected” or “unclean” if it slips out of place just once.  But really, it’s a choice one makes every minute of every day, during dozens or hundreds of discrete physical encounters or near-encounters with people and things; and “safety” isn’t an all-or-nothing characterization but a spectrum depending on the aggregate of all of those encounters.

Think of it this way:  If I were to say  (and I’m sorry for the PG-13 nature of this analogy, it’s just the one that came most easily to my filthy mind) that “prophylactics don’t have a 100% success rate, so in my 100 sexual encounters a day I’m not going to use a prophylactic for a single one of them”—you’d say that was obvious nonsense.  But the argument you deploy above kind of seems to be a variant of it—“since I can’t limit my transmissibility risk to 0%, there’s no point in me inconveniencing myself for the sake of lowering it to 75 or 50 or 25%.

Now, if someone wants to say “I believe that the reduction in risk of transmissibility offered by a mask, in conjunction with the potential consequences to a person who gets infected from me, are not worth the personal sacrifices it would require for me to wear a mask at all”—that, I think, shows that some thought has gone into the decision; and I could respect that (I say “could” because so far it’s a hypothetical—I don’t recall dialoguing with *any* anti-masker who was willing to acknowledge that masks do anything at all.  So far they all seem to stick with “it won’t do ANY good”, which  strikes me as the result of an over-simplified calculus).

2.  Agree.  I suspect that my own mask is no more than 20-25% effective, if that.  But ultimately, wearing one costs me very little.  And while I don’t care what people think of my virtue, I do care that people feel comfortable around me.  In the past I’ve cited Romans 14 and Mosiah 10 in defense of “modesty culture”, arguing that females in the Church should inconvenience themselves to a degree for the sake of not becoming a stumblingblock to their fellowsaints and in the name of bearing one another’s burdens.  Having personally done that, I’d feel a bit hypocritical refusing to wear a mask to Church when for me, the cost to my convenience and health is so very low and I know that there are people in my ward who’s feel safer if I wore one.

As you say—it’s an individual decision, and good folk will apply different praxes for different reasons.  I just reserve the right to comment and criticize when some folks openly cite to/advocate a decision-making process that has some noticeable flaws.   

(Though I note that as a conservative Church member, I don’t think we—as conservatives—have ever bent over backwards to assuage the consciences of those who chose publicly proclaim their choice to disregard a particular bit of prophetic counsel.  We didn’t buy their assertions that it was “just his opinion” or that even aspiring to obedience was unnecessary and even harmful.  We haven't done that regarding the counsel about young men having a responsibility to qualify themselves to serve missions, or for young women to limit themselves to one pair of earrings, or for teens to avoid R-rated movies, or for young couples to have as many kids as they can, or for the Church membership to read the Book of Mormon through in a given year or participate in a social media fast or make a series of Facebook posts about gratitude.  No, our counsel as conservatives has been “if you can’t, you can’t; but most of us can actually do more than we think we can, and if you can, then you should try.”  We have pointed out that while we strive to love everyone, the church is a subculture and subcultures define their membership by who aspires to a set of standards.  Jumping when the prophet says “jump” (or at least agreeing that we should jump, and encouraging and helping others to do so even when our own legs fail us) is a standard the Church has long maintained.  Other Church members are always going to notice whether I seem eager to conform or eager to justify my failure to conform.  And (within reasonable bounds), that is as it should be.)

And, for what it’s worth—given what I took @JohnsonJones to be suggesting about anti-maskers and potentially trying to lump them into Harry Reid territory, I thought I was actually defending them with my comment about them being deceived!   

Edited January 22 by Just_A_Guy

[JohnsonJones 2253]

On 1/20/2022 at 2:32 PM, Vort said:

I believe I made it abundantly clear that I do not know and refuse to speculate on Harry Reid's spiritual state. Maybe a careful rereading of what I wrote will help.

Yes, I believe you stated

Quote

But speaking in general terms, I am hard-pressed to understand how a man can proclaim his devotion under covenant to principles of truth, then openly and even proudly defy the truth for political advantage, even to the point of openly stating regarding his lies, "Well, he lost, didn't he?", with no intrinsic damage to his own soul and still stand white and spotless before God. 

If it applies to the goose, it SHOULD apply to the gander...should it not?

 

I don't know Senator's Reid fate in the afterlife, but I hope that he get's exaltation.  I hope that you get there too and everyone in this thread.  I can't say I am aware of Harry Reid's shortcomings, but I DO see a LOT Of idolatry in the world today, and a LOT of it by the Saints.  They put their own political beliefs ahead of religion and the Lord.  It has become very obvious over the past few years.

However, I have come to a realization in the past few weeks that the Lord is an extremely merciful being.  He could raise children from the stones if he wanted to, but instead he suffers those who are already his followers in their weaknesses.  He could have outright destroyed the Nephites in their wickedness on multiple instances in the Book of Mormon, but instead spared them at times so that they could return to him and have progeny that eventually would become the most righteous group of people we have on record in the scriptures.

There were times in our own church where the Saints could have been destroyed, much of it due to their own pride and greed at times, and yet they were spared.  From them came a multitude of blessings as the Church moved west and became a great manifestation of his glory.

Even in Abraham's time, the Lord was willing to spare an entire civilization if there were only 10 righteous people in the entire population.  There were not, but he was willing.  I'm sure there are plenty of righteous people among us today, even if many are worshipping their idols of political policy, political figures, or worldy aspirations instead.

I have been reminded of these things recently as I've read the scriptures and pondered over the Church's response to the pandemic.  It could have been easy for the Church to take a hardline and stated that those who are anti-mask and anti-vax are not welcome...but that is not the Lord's way.  We have been ASKED repeatedly by our leadership to do certain things and of course, a great multitude of Saints have chosen not to do these things.  If the Lord's servants took a hardline it is very possible that we may lose those opposed to the requests of the servants of the Lord very quickly.  Masking up NOT just in Church, but in public places and social distancing is something we hear people talk against almost everywhere, including this site, despite an apostle of the Lord asking us to do so and a more forceful letter asking us to do so more recently, less than half a year ago. Then the Prophet not only set the example of getting vaccinated, they strongly suggested we do so also.  I have heard many speak against doing such things and making up all sorts of fanciful excuses why they do not need to.  A great many have also criticized the Prophet and First Presidency in the past few months (which could not be easy for them to bear, but they do so, or have thus far...we should pray for them) while railing against these items.

The Lord has no desire for people to fall away from the Church, even with their weaknesses.  He has a great deal of mercy in trying to save our souls...even when we are kicking and screaming against it.  Each of us  have our own problems and difficulties of which we fall short.  None of us are perfect. 

I don't know any weakness of Harry Reid, but even if I did know, it appears that the General Leadership of the Church held him in a high regard...and if they did, who am I to question? 

It seems that many Church members have confused their political party for their religion.  They worship their political views rather than the Lord.  They feel that the Church has to be one party or another, that those who are not Republicans or the Far Right, or Trumpers (or whatever political affiliation the member is) they must not be righteous.

Officially, however, the Church is POLITICALLY NEUTRAL.  The support neither party equally, while supporting members of each party equally.  Just because someone does not do what one wants them to do or think politically, it has NO BEARING on how that individual is religiously.  Furthermore the Church is not just an American church, it is politically neutral regarding the politics of other nations as well.

Now, I fall short of the Lord's example by an extreme measure.  I am no where close to him, though I strive to be.  I do not have great opinions of those who try to hide the truth or despise the truth of science, or those that try to deny science and call facts mere opinions or make them political issues.  We saw the Great and Abominable Church (under the guise of the Catholic Church in Europe) do that to scientists in the 16th and 17th centuries, inspired by the Adversary to try to hold back the wonders and comforts of our modern age.  We've seen the great travesty and destruction that doing these things to scientist or ignoring science leads to.  Personally, I do not feel this is the Lord's way of doing things.  I think the Church follows a way more on how the Lord would have us do in regards to modern day science. 

We have Church leadership that appears to believe in science as a tool the Lord can use to bless us and advises us to follow good scientific advice regarding the pandemic.  I have found that I am not as patient as the Lord by any means in my regards for those who are speaking out against the Prophet, the First Presidency, and at least one apostle and their statements regarding the pandemic. 

As I said, I have a LONG ways to go, and need to work on myself to get more humility and patience.  I need to be more loving.

Luckily, the Prophet, First Presidency and the apostles are led by the Lord and he is merciful and loving to all of us.  I imagine that he loved Harry Reid just as much as any of his other children, and we should understand that the Lord's mercy and love is extended to all men who come to him and worship in his name.  Harry Reid was a Saint in good standing with the Church from what I know, who are we to question that?

Edited January 22 by JohnsonJones