All Activity

Well, one of the D's who just one was arrested for felony car theft and goes to court next week.

Party of law and order and family values.

And in this total R wipeout, he won.

Biblically hunting often has a negative connotation. The most notable people associated with hunting are Nimrod, Ishmael, and Esau. All of them are rebels against God to an extent and the latter two are the ‘unfavored sons’. Hunting came to be associated with idleness as opposed to agrarian industry. This shows up in the Book of Mormon where the Lamanites are the hunters killing beasts in the wilderness whereas the Nephites are the civilized and industrious farmers. The irony of course is that from what we can tell hunter-gatherers tended to eat better due to a more varied diet and lived longer (farming wears out the body pretty fast). Farming won out because agrarian societies can have a higher population density and can drive out hunter-gatherers through the weight of numbers. You either become agrarian yourselves to be able to fight back or are driven into areas where agrarianism is impractical or impossible.

No, the Catholic equivalent of purgatory is purgatory.

She had two children with her nesting partner and has another partner she does not live with. This is more normal poly. Terrible reporting. Wild sex is always on tap? Is it though? I have a lot of poly friends in polycules and it is not always on tap? They have lives to live too. The headline is probably wrong. This isn’t a 20 person relationship. It is a polycule of around 20. A polycule is like a family tree of poly. You have a few partners. A partner’s partner is often called a meta. A meta’s partners are also part of your polycule but at that point they are like friends of a friend. I love the “queer women” and “heteroflexible men”. Ah, homophobia, never change. Wait, no, please change. Depends on the agreements the various people have. Some poly people enjoy casual sex. Many do not. It looks like there is some casual sex in this group. Also group sex is not the norm. Some like it but it is not the norm in poly. It is chosen cousins kissing, it is fine. You know, and then throw in the rope, handcuffs, and floggers for fun. Depends on the people involved. Often you have a primary partner who you often (but not always) live with. This isn’t an indication of how much you love the other person but how committed you are. You can have other partners with less commitment. You can have casual partners with almost no commitment. I doubt it. Relationships that don’t thrive in poly are usually the ones that wouldn’t thrive in monogamy either. Also a lot fewer people in poly seek to have children so you’re good. Also queer people are more drawn to poly/enm structures and many of them (thought not all) can’t have children biologically anyways. There is a joke in the poly community in my area that if you want to destroy your polycule just invite a cishet white guy to join.

That is not the usual poly setup. By that I mean a relationship set up with everyone involved all dating everyone else is not normal. The more normal and sustainable setup is each individual may have multiple partners without sharing the same partners (usually). I practiced variants of this back in my days of sin and vice. The group setup is usually a sloppy mess and almost always explodes. Hail Satan’s glorious kingdom! Beats actually having to think I suppose. It is occurring in the most developed nations on Earth many of whom have the highest happiness indexes worldwide. We should really return to the sensible values of subsistence farmers where women were property and most men had limited or no choice as to whom they would marry because that is the wisdom of our ancestors. Yeah, no thanks. And you’re getting that data from the misogynistic patriarchal versions of the past and assuming it maps onto modern polyamorous relationships. The old version still exists. It is amongst Mormon fundies and a small cadre of Christian fundamentalists where wives are property conferred to their husbands by the legal contract of marriage and men can have more because men better. So…..just like regular divorce lawyers who are cleaning up while divorce rates are *checks notes* falling….wait….what? And if it is good you won’t believe it. If 38 studies show that it works around average but 2 show some negative effects and 3 of the 38 had some methodological problems you will take that as proof the jury is still out and we can assume the worst.

From the article: The link takes you to this article: Inside a ‘radical’ 20-person polyamorous relationship where wild sex is always on tap Some excerpts: Promiscuity can be an element of these arrangements. “It’s chosen family … just a little kinkier.” This arrangement appears to contemplate a lack of commitment. Yes, children will likely pay a steep price for this sort of thing. Thanks, -Smac

“Those people”? Do you even know any of “Those people” or are you railing against a caricature in your head? You know like the caricatures all the people back East came up with in the 1800s railing against Mormon polygyny. I really don’t think modern poly looks anything like what you are imagining. And a new “THINK OF THE CHILDREN” moral panic incoming. Hooray. Does this mean transgender people get a break at least? Most of the “poly” stuff that makes it to people at large is sensationalized drek and is almost always a triad relationship with one man and two women all in a relationship with each other. This is generally considered to be advanced poly and not the way you should start a poly journey and many people refuse to be involved in a such a relationship structure at all because it is very very difficult. Then it gets made into a reality show and you get a lot of psychologically unwell people in an already broken set of relationships and watch it all implode so the pearl-clutching masses can gawk at the freaks.

Is LDS spirit prison equivalent to Catholic purgatory? No, but they are both based on a similar truth that the state of death is not necessarily the final judgement, there is a space between and that people can undergo a process before their ultimate judgment and reward. But there are important differences. Catholic purgatory concerns the final purification of those who die in God's grace and are assured of salvation. LDS spirit prison is one part of a broader understanding of the whole spirit world, involving all kinds of people with very different circumstances, opportunities, and degrees of faithfulness. More importantly, LDS theology includes the opportunity for all people to hear and accept the gospel after death, and thus alter their end before the end is reached. This is not simply a process of suffering to cleanse an already-saved soul. We don't exactly know if they suffer upon their arrival in prison, I lean on Josephus that people in hell aren't cast into the fire yet (Josephus, Hades 1-2). You don't need the temple to get to spirit paradise. Temple ordinances are not viewed as payments for sin. They are covenant ordinances through which individuals receive other blessings Christ made possible. Christ provides the means of salvation. Individuals must choose to accept Him and repent. Ordinances provide the means of receiving blessings. And proxy ordinances make those blessings available to people in the entire spirit world. The deceased person is not being forced into a covenant. They retain their agency and can accept or reject the ordinances performed on their behalf. This is explicitly taught in the Church's explanation of baptisms for the dead. In other words, the ordinances don't compete with Christ's atonement. They are part of the means by which its blessings are extended to humanity. From D&C 76:52, "That by keeping the commandments they might be washed and cleansed from all their sins, and receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the hands of him who is ordained and sealed unto this power." Notice that the passage doesn't say people cleanse themselves through their own obedience. It says they are washed and cleansed. The faithful response to God's grace. They are not a substitute for the cleansing power of Christ. Nothing we do can undo the past, it takes a mediator who can assume the punishment we owe for the past.

Those people tend to be promiscuous. Why bother with marriage and commitment? If there are properties then simply work out a business contract. However, children will likely lose their bonding, stability and long term commitment. Like those damned to heartbreak of foster care.

I would say the ideas are similar but I wouldn't say they are equivalent.

Whereas babies and those under age of 8 that pass away are redeemed from the Fall without ever having to wait in the "place of torment" (see Luke 16:23).

The doctrine of spirit prison resembles a purgatory for the wicked, where individuals must suffer for their own sins to be cleansed. While faithful LDS elders avoid this suffering to preach to those in darkness (D&C 138:57), the spirits in prison are only redeemed after receiving all temple ordinances (v. 58). Furthermore, verse 59 suggests that Christ's atonement alone does not exempt them from paying a personal penalty for their transgressions before being washed clean. Catholic purgatory is exclusively for the saved whereas spirit prison includes both the unevangelized, the unrepentant, the wicked, and possibly those who have not received all the temple ordinances. How do you feel this requirement for personal suffering and all temple ordinances impacts the core teaching regarding the sufficiency of Christ's atonement? Keeping all the commandments is also a requirement. "That by keeping the commandments they might be washed and cleansed from all their sins, and receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the hands of him who is ordained and sealed unto this power".

From this blog: Then a link: California city makes history allowing throuples, foursomes to legally register as partners I think this will end up as an incremental step toward full legal recognition of group marriages. If "marriage" can be redefined to remove gender as an element, and if that redefinition is constitutionally required, then I'm not sure I see a constraint against redefining marriage again to remove number as an element, also as a constitutional requirement. Boy, divorce and child custody and asset division and whatnot will be brutal. "{T}his law is just the beginning. Yes, I think that is right. I asked Grok to outline some potential/likely outcomes: Marriage has always been centered on procreation and the rearing of children. That's gone now. Across the great majority of recorded human societies, marriage has functioned primarily as a sexual and economic union that regulates reproduction, establishes paternity, and creates a relatively stable setting for the rearing of children. While the precise rules vary (monogamy, polygyny, etc.), the institution is nearly universal and is tightly linked to the production and socialization of offspring. Sexual access outside marriage has typically been restricted precisely because of its consequences for children and inheritance. Decoupling marriage from procreation is a recent development, largely confined to the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries in a subset of wealthy Western societies. Changes in contraception, no-fault divorce, prioritizing romantic companionship over reproductive partnership, and the legalization of same-sex marriage have, I think, contributed to a legal and cultural redefinition in which the rearing of children is no longer a necessary or even expected feature of the institution. That shift is historically anomalous rather than the long-standing norm. I don't think it will end well. So not very good for women, either. This is the sort of stuff that has made polygamy one of the few aspects of the Restored Gospel which I find troubling, as not intuitively "good." My acceptance of the principle is abstract, as is acceptance of past requirements for animal sacrifice. And not very good for a lot of men, either. Divorce lawyers who specialize in addressing the dissolution of group marriages may end up making a lot of money. We need to see what the long-term data indicates. I suspect it will not be good. Hmm. Thanks, -Smac

There are several interpretations. One refers to it as the Parable of the Olive Leaf. Another (Lesson 93, Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teach Manual) identifies specific priesthood holders as "the first laborers in this last kingdom". "Remind students that the Lord gave the revelation in Doctrine and Covenants 88 to a g roup of priesthood holders who had prayed to know the Lord’s will concerning the establishment of Zion. In this revelation, the Lord referred to this group of priesthood holders as “the first laborers in this last kingdom” (see D&C 88:70, 74) and commanded them to organize and attend a school to prepare themselves to preach the gospel among the nations of the earth (see D&C 88:74, 84, 127)". The idea of being the "first laborers in this last kingdom" was emphasized again in 1974 and 1996 General Conference talks by Presidents Spencer W. Kimball and Gordon B. Hinckley. But they don't identify the twelve servants who are each working with the lord of the field on their respective worlds. D&C 88:51 mentions a man (later identified as "lord of the field") sending twelve servants into the field to dig it, each in his own respective hour. The "field" seems limited in scope, only twelve worlds. The idea of "many kingdoms" seems to be many worlds, but then one in particular is identified as the last one, or the last kingdom. The aspect of "hour" seems to denote time. The "lord of the field" visits and works with each servant. The "lord" is mentioned as having tarried with the first servant for only his hour (the first hour). The lord visits each of the other eleven servants and presumably also tarries with each of them for their respective hour; the second hour for the second servant, the third hour for the third servant, and so on. The "hour" is the same for all the twelve servants on each of their own worlds. It is unclear who the twelve servants of the twelve worlds are assuming the "lord of the field" is Jesus Christ, as verse 75 seems to indicate. Verses 70 and 74 introduces laborers in the last kingdom, not individual servants for each separate kingdom mentioned earlier. This seems to symbolize Earth as the last kingdom according to the revelation given by Joseph Smith. "Tarry ye, tarry ye in this place, and call a solemn assembly, even of those who are the first laborers in this last kingdom". "And I give unto you, who are the first laborers in this last kingdom, a commandment that you assemble yourselves together, and organize yourselves, and prepare yourselves, and sanctify yourselves; yea, purify your hearts, and cleanse your hands and your feet before me, that I may make you clean". The parable in D&C 88 reminds me of the one in Jacob 5, where the servant labors alone with the Lord of the vineyard for the majority of the time (verses 10-60). It is only in verse 61 that other servants are called in the last time. All of them (indicated as a few), together with the first servant (of Jacob 5), labor in the field (Jacob 5:70). This "last time" (5:71) appears to be analogous to the "last kingdom" (the twelveth hour) of D&C 88.

That's good of you Rain. I, not surprisingly, agree. God bless you.

It makes me think that you were typing, at least somewhat, like you talk. I am with an organization that interviews refugees and others about immigration. We record what is said on an app and it transcribes it for us, but it always needs a cleanup of mistranscribed words or who is saying what etc. "You know" is very common in people's language. There have been times when people have said it 80 times in the course of 60-90 min. Sometimes it is just a filler word, but sometimes people are just trying to make a connection. The latter is what I think of yours.

It implies either direction, that angel are influenced by these cultures or the cultures are influenced by these angels, which could be disturbing to Christian people to suggest "pagan" cultures are possibly angelically inspired. We know that could be the case, if the angels do run the world or inspires it at all but it subverts expectations, with the angels the Bible depicts wearing priestly white robes and sash.

Hmmm. I never knew. I am wondering if I am so ignorant that I should quit voting voluntarily and quit listening to outsiders who don't even have any idea how little I pay attention to what is called news, like Ice, and their maskers. It stopped abruptly, but I was blown away with text messages continuously reminding me to be voting until Tuesday. I obeyed them. They were also going HARD after someone called Joshua. I made some suggestions about how they might find him. I think he used to have my current phone#. Until recently it was always about some activity called vaping. Vaping is synonymous perhaps with voting? It was like the world was coming to an end if Joshua didn't vote/vape. Joshua must be very wise, but forgetful? They haven't got back to me about whether he voted/vaped or not. When I text back to find about whether they succeeded in persuading him to vote/vape they don't even reply. Kinda rude? Why do people want those like me who don't care much about voting/vaping to vote/vape? I only checked on a couple of the choices I made later. As almost always, I voted/vaped for the wrong side anyway. That's no fun. I voted/vaped for all these things and people that I didn't know about. I think there should be some kind of qualification that would eliminate people like me who don't pay attention unless I get hassled about it. And believe me, I have never been more hassled than this year. They should leave voting/vaping to people who actually care about those activities, and leave the rest of us who want to forget about them alone! I got this sticker as a prize for voting/vaping that used the old lingo. It said, "I voted." Back when I was young, I never knew about vaping/voting. Only voting. They are probably using up surplus stickers. Anyway, it was probably hoped that I would put it on my forehead like ashes on Ash Wednesday. I admit, I only put it on the steering wheel of my son's in-law car. (I voted/vaped in-between school runs for the grandchildren and they have so many kids we don't have a big enough car to take them all). I tried to scrape it off later, realizing that my son-in-law will find out I didn't put it on my head where it belongs.

I am not wed to our current 3 dimensional experience as being our eternal existence. I suspect we are much more in part because of how God can be aware of all things throughout time. This might even include a true omnipresence for God and the rest of the universe. I don’t see 3 dimensions as required by scripture.

I read it as ICE is a prime example of masking/anonymity leading to incivility, abuse: https://www.cato.org/blog/ice-agents-seizing-people-now-routinely-wear-masks-thats-wrong My guess is Elder Cook wasn’t thinking of the government in his talk. Would like it if he was though.

When I said "You know." I didn't mean what the words say. There are expressions which are understood not necessarily according to the literal meaning. What I meant more literally was, "Hey y'know how some people seem to be slow at getting punchlines?" Words are hard. But its all we have to try to communicate. What do you think about the Word became flesh? I almost certainly miss a lot of the implications of that too. Anyway, ICE is probably easier. Let's try to understand that first.

Why is it necessary to you to insist it’s binary instead of bimodal? There are other human systems that are strongly bimodal and yet no one has issues with describing variations on the spectrum rather than insisting on there just being two modes and everything is one or the other. For example, handedness…it’s not either right or left even though the vast majority of people (over 90%) are one or the other. Sex (and I mean biology and not gender) was defined long before we knew of the existence of X and Y chromosome, so objectively why should we only use them to define sex? There are those who produce eggs, get pregnant and have children who also may possess some male biological characteristics. There are those who produce fertile sperm who may have some female biological characteristics. Others may need help with only some aspects, but still be a mother or father in any meaningful biological sense. https://www.pacificfertilitycenter.com/blog/intersex-fertility-care-exploring-your-reproductive-options There are plenty of professional organizations that define sex on the basis of multiple biological characteristics. Why insist the only relevant ones are the chromosomes and then dismiss the variations and their expressions that even occur with them as irrelevant anomalies? AI did the work below:

Miserere. What does your reply mean? Can you explain its popularity to me? I am truly ignorant. Heh. You know. I don't get jokes. I get some. But often not. Was this a joke?