All Activity

Wow. I had a hard time believing that was written by a liberal. But I realized that it was an old school liberal who had not bowed to the woke mob. A lot of people have not changed their positions. But the parties have moved the needle.

Our side doesn’t do that either. Self critique is impossible when dealing with true believers.

I think the real question is what happens on your next trip alone, what happens next time you are in a similar situation for a prolonged period of time, what happens next time a man tries to flirt with you? And you dont have to be on a long flight for this to happen, it could happen next time you go shopping. Having once participated and enjoyed it, will you want to do so again? Will this be a once only experience or the beginning of a pattern? Some possible responses to those questions could be a) I feel bad about this, that's my conscience telling me that it was wrong, so I won't do it again, and I'd better take some preventative steps to reduce the likelihood of it happening again. b) That was a test, I enjoyed it, I passed the test, so if the opportunity arises, I'll do it again or c ) I enjoyed that, nothing bad happened, I want it to happen again so I'll look for or create similar opportunities. B and C are dangerous choices. Any sort of action that releases endorphins often becomes an action that we want to do more of. For some people it only takes one drink to become an alcoholic. Welcome to the forum, its a great place to get advice and discuss ideas.

Yay - they keep that thing updated! Yep, everyone and every source has a bias. Every media source has a political bent. Every individual reporter, every news desk anchor, every editorial staff. Although I'd suppose NPR could be re-evaluated. They suppressed Hunter's Laptop and the COVID lab leak theory, and pushed Trump's Russian Collusion controversy hard. And, when all 3 turned out to be what they are, NPR couldn't be bothered to admit any wrongdoing or apologize. https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-trust

This won’t satisfy every one of course, but it’s a good indicator of bias in the news.

I get much of my geopolitics news from creators like this guy: https://www.youtube.com/@PrestonStewart

Matsah can be hard like crackers or soft like a pita. And it very often has salt and oil for flavor.

If it isn't interesting to the internal politics of the US, the news has nothing to spin. So, why would they waste breath on it? I'm sure you'll find one or two articles about these things on virtually every news outlet. But they're not really pushing them too hard. It doesn't sell.

Monday Ukraine announced (Monday April 22) that they had captured a Russian General. This is a little perplexing because I have not seen any coverage of this in USA news broadcasting. But then I do not watch every minute of news coverage. There is a lot of stuff on You Tube and other internet sources but there does not seem to be any Russian response or US responses???? In light of this and what Israel did with Iran – there has to be repercussions – across the entire world structure of country alignments. At first glance this looks to be good for Western aligned countries, but I am concerned that without solid Western (democratic) leadership that all this could be more destabilizing – especially in light of political unrest and demonstrations against Israel and not Hamas. Things seem to keep turning in ways I do not expect. The Traveler

I'm not sure why this is important. The Greek word for paradise, depending on context, can mean any of the following: The abode of the dead (the spirit world) The place of the pious awaiting resurrection (paradise) Heaven (any of the kingdoms of glory) So, any of these meanings can be accurate no matter what you think is going to happen to this man. But we have to ask ourselves what was Jesus trying to say? Why would He have said "verily, verily..."? It didn't sound like He was trying to condemn him as if it were too late. It sounded like He was trying to encourage him. It wouldn't be much of an encouragement if He were referring to spirit prison. The man certainly seemed repentant. He was willing to take responsibility for his sins. He showed remorse. He spoke to Jesus in humility. He showed faith in Christ. If all this is true, wouldn't he be ushered into Paradise? What is the point of sifting through the definitions? Are we trying to condemn this man to spirit prison when he showed repentance? What is it so important?

Count your many blessings, name them one, by one...........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tSnaZKUXEE Perhaps many have seen this video about the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine of Christ. I realize that it is longer than most would care to listen, but I recommend it if you have not seen it before. I especially like the reference to Lehi’s Dream and the three points of doctrine of Christ and what we can understand from the examples given in revelation. The Traveler

It may have not been completely completed, but it is complete enough to be completely better than the KJV. 😁

I try not to be alone with a woman if it can be avoided as I am married. Personally I believe it leads to nothing good. If you are married, flirting with someone else is also not something wise to give in to. There is a very fine line of being friendly and getting into flirting territory. Let the Holy Spirit be your guide. My own conscience calls me out along with the Holy Ghost many times when I am not in a spiritual mind set. 8 So then they that are after the flesh cannot please God. 9 But ye are not after the flesh, but after the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you . . . 1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. -- Romans Chapter 8 Inspired Version

Hi again Suzie. I was looking through my spiritual journal recently and also discovered this: “The reason why the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has not published the entire [Inspired Version Bible] manuscript is not due to any lack of confidence in the integrity of Joseph Smith, or doubt as to the correctness of the numerous additions and changes which are not in the Authorized Version of the Bible. The members of the Church do accept fully all of these (changes) as having come by divine revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith. The reason that is has not been published by the Church is due to the fact that this revision was not completed. It was the intention of Joseph Smith, while at Nauvoo, to take the scriptures up again and complete his labors, making numerous corrections which had not been made by him in the earlier revision. Due to persecution and mobbing this opportunity never came, so that the manuscript was left with only a partial revision” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Selections from Answers to Gospel Questions: A Course of Study for the Melchizedek Priesthood Quorum 1972-73, page 312). Why doesn’t the current Latter Day Saint leadership, who possess priesthood keys and serve as God’s mouthpiece upon the earth—finish the work themselves? Bruce McConkie wrote that “up to the present time none of his successors have been directed by the Lord to carry the work forth to its final fruition” (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, page 383). However, he promised, “There will be a not too distant day when all necessary changes shall be made in the Bible, and the Inspired Version — as then perfected — shall go forth to the world” (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, page 384).

I must point out again that you've never met me.

I agree with you. This is a really interesting post. Thank you!

You still haven't provided any links to specific examples. You made the claim. You need to back it up. But let's assume you're correct (you could be). That is by no means an indication. I'll give you an example. Did you know that for many years people thought Joseph had the First Vision at 15 (16th year of age) rather than 14? True. This was because of a side note that the scribe (Fredrick G. Williams) wrote as a superscript in the 1832 account. As far as we know, Joseph never spoke those words. Yet that version was widely circulated saying "15 years old." Virtually everyone believed it and everyone repeated it. But with so many other versions (which were less popular for a while) saying 14 years, it was eventually corrected among the common membership. So, mistakes can happen en masse a lot more often than people like to admit. Just look at mainstream Christianity. And, yes, it is quite possible that multiple accounts misheard or misunderstood exactly what words were used in the speech, and what their meaning really was. And, of course, there is one more test for valid revelation: What other apostles then repeated Young's doctrine in their own words and by the Spirit of Revelation? You said many of his contemporaries repeated his words. I'm aware of people quoting him, but not adding their witness of the Spirit to Young's words. Show the links.

I'm pretty sure they were. But the subtle changes of the artist's hand were just enough to give the "hyper-ideal" figures some qualities that simply wouldn't exist in a real human being.

I think you mean Camp 2.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/sites-released-for-three-temples-in-florida-and-utah

These are my personal observations. Take them for what they seem worth to you. There are two types of men: Those that understand women on an emotional level Those that do not understand women, but naively assume that women are emotionally pretty much like men, only more prone to tears The second group is far larger than the first. Most temple-worthy Latter-day Saint men find themselves in Camp 2. Your husband is statistically likely to be a Camp Twoer. Men can also be divided (roughly) into two camps along another axis, namely, how they feel toward women: Those that respect women Those that do not truly respect women as people, but see them as things to be used to achieve their own ends. Call these Camp A and Camp B. Curiously, at least in my experience, Camp A seems at least as large as Camp B, and probably larger, both inside and outside the Church. To hear women talk about it, you would never guess that to be the case, but I think it is. Some men call themselves "pick-up artists". These men are usually from Camp 1 and almost always from Camp B. Women find these guys irresistable. Why? In part at least, it's because they are from Camp 1 and understand women. And because these men are also from Camp B, they use their understanding of women to get into their panties. For them, that's the game. They are expert flirts. For women, flirting is a game to see if they (the women) can garner external validation. For men (at least for the PAs), flirting is a game to see if they (the men) can successfully seduce the women. This is a dangerous, volatile situation. The women involved in flirting may not consciously be looking for a sexual "hook-up", and may even believe they want to avoid that. But they are craving that emotional validation, and the men (at least the PAs) know exactly how to feed that hunger. Many women have found themselves in bed with a man they don't know and/or don't even like because they "followed their heart" (meaning their emotions) into the bedroom. Odds are that you would not follow through and cheat on your husband. But let's be clear: You're playing with fire and stand a nonzero chance of getting burned. If you view your marriage through a gospel lens, you will consider it of infinite importance, and would not risk its integrity to get some attention any more than you would risk your child's life to get some thrills. Whether or not the other guy was a PA is beside the point, at least as far as that goes. (By the way, women divide into the same two sets of camps as men. Like men, most women dwell in Camp 2, which is why women so often naively and wrongly claim that men are "emotionally stunted" or some nonsense of the sort; they expect men to be women that shave their faces. However, my observation is that women are pretty equally divided between Camps A and B, and if anything tend more toward Camp B. Men are and always have been viewed by women as caretakers. As a result, women view men quite dispassionately—many men would say ruthlessly—as to what the men can offer to the woman. This is most obvious when talking with young women in their late teens and twenties. If Carb had listened to his sister's friends much longer, he likely would eventually have heard conversation that would have included the women objectifying men, including their husbands, to a shocking degree. Not all women do this, of course; my wife never does. But if men stay quiet and pay attention to what women say in public and in private, many of them will be amazed at what they hear. Women are not the people we men often think they are. More to the point, women are not the people we men have been taught that they are.)

I've seen actual photos of the process being done. They're floating around somewhere, but I don't have the links handy. Let's just say that the people they brought on board as references for He-Man and Skeletor were pretty beefed up by the standards of the early 1980s.

If the entire movie had been up to the standard of that scene it would have been awesome indeed!