rongo

What didn't you like about the MTC? I enjoyed it (mid 90s), but the field was infinity times better. My daughter loved England. A very tight-knit group.

I've heard that home MTC strongly reduces missionaries quitting from the MTC, but I have no idea how many went home from the MTC to begin with. It can't affect the MTC numbers, because all cohorts start with a couple of weeks of home, so the numbers would stabilize as cohorts cycle in and out (always some starting at home, then at the MTC, then leaving as others arrive). I definitely think that waiting until it feels like the right time is a good thing. Our kids have really benefited from a year (or more) of college away from home.

How many were there with your son? I'm sure the England MTC has more capacity than 50, but that's about how many were there with her. Your son's already in Tennessee, right? The Provo MTC was expanded to hold more than 5000, wasn't it? And how many are there now?

Conference has become pretty boring, from a discussion board fodder standpoint. I think that's the main reason --- good thoughts this morning, but what was there that makes for good discussion board material? I expect more of the same today and tomorrow. It did seem like there is concern about low missionary numbers. I expected "Covid missionary work" to put a damper on enthusiasm for missions, and I think that has borne out. The England MTC has about 50 at a time, Provo has, what, a couple hundred? How many does Mexico have? There doesn't seem to be as many in the pipeline going out. My daughter went an extra semester for the restrictions to hopefully be gone, and it looks like she might have timed it just right.

Joseph Smith does this from time to time --- repurposing "accepted English" in different ways. While you are technically correct, I think the reader gets his drift --- goodbye, or shut the door, instead of "so be it."

This is spin because he is taking it on the chin for his policies. The reason there are unused leases and permits is because it does no good to drill or develop if you don't have a way to get the oil to the refineries. The unused leases are unused because they couldn't get the oil to the refineries if they find it, and that is by design (cf. the killing of the pipelines). Local "and according to the guidelines of the CDC?" That would be . . . the Biden administration (he put in Rochele Walensky). And the CDC has taken a big prestige hit with its political agendas (e.g., collusion with teachers' unions to keep school guidelines separate from other similar areas, despite "the science"). The big one that the Biden administration affected was at the ports. Biden administration vaccination requirements for shippers, longshoremen, etc. made it so that shippers from other countries faced huge bottlenecks and roadblocks for unloading (that's why there were the ships with shipping containers sitting for months off of Long Beach). Ditto with the vaccine mandate for truck drivers. All of these pieces in the supply chain were directly impacted by unitateral Biden administrative policy (not needing congressional approval). As you remember, Biden's way of doing an end run around this with respect to "employers with more than 100 employees) was to have it be an "OSHA rule," rather than a law. He pulled out of the dive after the Supreme Court struck down the rule (and the pandemic was waning, anyway). Presidents (on both sides) regularly rule unilaterally via executive order, precisely because it circumvents the need for congressional approval. He is rightly regarded as owning all of this.

Over inflation? Their policies either exacerbate or ameliorate it. Killing pipelines (first act on day one) and yanking oil leases has had a direct impact on gas prices --- a year before the war in Ukraine. Increasing the price of oil to the point where people would be forced to buy electric cars was a talking point during the campaign. Covid restrictions and shutdowns/lockdowns had (and continues to have) a direct effect on the supply chain, material shortages, and the job market. Both Trump and Biden injected trillions of stimulus money into an economy that was set up to be super-heated (coming out of the Covid shutdowns and restrictions) --- with the inevitable result of runaway inflation. Presidents are rightly regarded as having a lot of impact on "this kind of stuff."

Rebaptism wasn't for remission of sins; it was more of a recommitment at certain times, like you listed.

This is exactly what Daniel Peterson points out on page 19 here: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1661&context=msr It's the same conclusion the Catholic Church reached (and, I think, the only conclusion that can be reached) in the Donatist schism. As Peterson puts it, "we could never know whose marriage was legal, or who was really a member of the Church. Did the man who ordained you have secret, unrepented sin? Then your ordination is invalid. Your mission was illegitimate, any converts you baptized are actually nonmembers, and you are living in adultery . . . How could we ever be sure of anything?"

How could it be "rather than authority?" It would have to be both, but without the actual authority (priesthood ordination), it would just be requests contingent upon faith. I think where the power comes in is "confidence waxing strong." President Packer told us at a stake conference about being stung by the Spirit after giving a "safe, garden variety" healing blessing of an infant that didn't really take any risks. He returned, and the surprised mother noted that he had just been there. "I gave your child a blessing, and I've come back to give her the blessing that God has for her." He told us that men need to prophesy much more than we do --- not play it safe --- and leave it up to God to fulfill it. That is inherent in the authority. Where men lack the power because of unworthiness, I think that the confidence and daring to do that are strongly curtailed. Then Elder Oaks mentioned that regardless of what is said in a blessing, the recipient will receive the blessing that God has for him. I think the same applies to relative unworthiness of the man giving the blessing. The recipient will not be punished for the unworthiness of the man giving the blessing, but the man must have authority. Otherwise, we're no different from Protestant faith healers, subject only to God's willingness to grant requests through faith.

Sometimes, the healing is efficacious, even if the one performing it is unworthy. You're right that "you have no promise," but God is often merciful and recognizes the authority, even if people are unworthy. Good, better best: it's best of all, and confidence "waxes strong" when there is unquestionably power in the priesthood.

So, do your wards have active provident living initiatives going? It seems to me that the stake self-reliance classes have petered out, after an initial push a few years ago. Maybe they're still going strong in some areas?

I've shared this before, but this issue (whether or not the Brethren have seen God) is a major issue for some people. One CES letter man I was asked to meet with had this as his #1 single biggest issue --- even after acknowledging in many cases that I had satisfactorily explained many of his other questions and issues. I shared some quotes with him (e.g., Orson Pratt and Heber C. Kimball) where they have directly stated that they had not, and gave as my own belief that some have, and some haven't (and even that some "civilians," or rank-and-file members have seen Jesus as well), but that this is not a requirement for the apostleship. When he insisted that it must be, I asked him where it ever says that, and he acknowledged that nowhere is this given as a requirement. It's an assumption. But, it's not an assumption that's out of left field, either (cf. Oliver Cowdery's instructions to the Twelve when they were ordained). Also, admitting that it hardly ever happens or is unnecessary, as several anecdotes here from President/Elder Nelson have, runs counter to the full realization of the 2nd Anointing --- making it even more of a hollow and superficial thing than it is (apparently, no more than an "in crowd" ordinance among Mormon royalty that doesn't really mean anything) because it would mean that almost no one who actually receives the ordinance fulfills it and has the appearance of the Second Comforter. As my uncle explained to me, the ordinance is supposed to be only the beginning, and couples are supposed to strive to receive the Second Comforter to fulfill the ordinance. I have no problem when people frankly acknowledge that this hasn't happened to them, but the Brethren have caused a bit of a problem of their own making in some of their reactions/overreactions when asked about this in other settings (i.e., not while hiking or in a one-on-one interview). At other times, they have played the "through experiences too sacred to share, I know . . ." card, and then this feeds into the assumption that it is an absolute requirement. I'm not tempted to go down that path, but I understand those who strive for what seems to be increasingly lost in the modern church (a la "Passing of the Heavenly Gift").

False rumor. I just logged into my daughter's. It works fine.

Only if society (or what remains) recognizes the "paper rights" in deeds and titles to be valid. If what emerges doesn't, then having title won't mean anything either. Rights would have to be asserted and defended, because there wouldn't be (or would be a different) rule of law. I agree as to the ranches and farms for the canneries. I think that increasingly they are simply cash investments, not necessarily primarily intended for self-reliance. The number of canneries in operation now is a fraction of what there used to be. Food storage at the family level has been completely de-emphasized. I think the family level is more important than the meta - institutional level.

What would it look like to Church members? Or, would the "gearing up" be completely in secret among upper leadership, and then suddenly announced at some point? The reliance on stock and finance markets that the Church plows its unspent revenue in doesn't indicate gearing up for the Millennium (at least, it doesn't to me). It indicates an expectation that the status quo is going to reign into the indefinite long-term future.

Because they're not acting that way. What in the Church's planning or activities seems like it's gearing up for a transition into the Millennium?

I thought it was the other song. "Losing my religion."

No problem at all. An example is the training from Social Centric my former district had. It was mandatory (I didn't go, anyway, but I was at the pre-conference because it was an after school PD). The point of the eight hour training was to train us to be "anti-racists, and to carry this back into our classrooms with activities and info. This included "implicit bias" and "systemic racism" (everyone is hopelessly biased, even when they think they aren't. Especially when they think they aren't. Racism is embedded in everything at all levels of society. It is the warp and woof of America from it's founding). The line from my pre-training was, "America is land of the thief, home of the slave, not Land of the free, home of the brave." I'm hoping you wouldn't be expected to indoctrinate your 5th graders with stuff like that, given where you live.

Agreed. History books (at age level), or even Black History Month items, are not what has parents up in arms. "Implicit bias,systemic racism, 1619 Project, white guilt/fragility/privilege, etc." are the sort of things parents and legislatures are up in arms about. A book about Rosa Parks, the sit-ins, and things like that are fine. That's not what is being referred to under the catchphrase of "CRT."

It's both. It's effective (cf. Virginia) because of the parents' own experiences in their local schools. If it were just Tucker Carlson with no personal experience, it would have far less power and effect

The reality in 2022 is that whatever is or isn't taught in any classroom is going to be recorded and disseminated. This is a natural check on radical things being taught (from the left or right). There is kind of a "herd immunity" effect, because this fact is in the back of teachers' minds. It probably helps keep radicalism in check without things going viral. This is probably going to have a protective effect at BYU, vis a vis Professor Bybee and people like that. They know there are kids in each class who will blow the whistle if they leave the rails. ETA: there is starting to be footage of multiple BYU professors. I think this is going to be a fascinating thing to watch in the next couple of years, because I'm sensing an administrative backlash to some of the more radical leftwing elements among BYU faculty. They have Elder Holland's musketeers and minutemen to think about. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m0NmUKtDJrw

Not only that (ad hominem to dismiss because of source without engaging claims), but many things are going to only be reported by RW media. There is a conspiracy of silence about certain things that legacy media wants to use its influence to tamp down, so of course they will only be covered by RW media. Grudging coverage and acknowledgment a year and a half later that Hunter Biden's laptop is real and authentic is one example of this. It was treated as a non-issue,fake news, or Russian propaganda, and was killed as a story during the election, but "legacy media" has no choice but to cover it now. Plus, it's a year and a half after the election. But, "legacy media" testing things as non stories does not in any way indicate that "there's nothing to see here." Liberals have their heads in the sand about parent anger about CRT (,as defined by parents, not "legacy media" talking points), and they soft pedal it at their own peril.

I find the argument about CRT to be fascinating. It's similar to the discussion about "gaslighting" that occurs here sometimes. When people get pedantic about CRT being narrowly defined as only a graduate level course of study that is never taught in K-12, I think they are failing to read the room. The revolution that swept through (and is continuing to sweep through) school boards, communities, schools, etc. isn't moved by the "fact check" tactics of denying that CRT is what people are concerned about. People are couching their concerns under the catchphrase of "CRT," and the "CRT" defenders are losing the PR battle big time --- especially when they keep insisting that it's only a graduate level course of study that is not being taught in any K-12 classrooms, anywhere. And then they learn of the 1619 project, support for BLM, white guilt/fragility, etc., etc. type-stuff being taught in their kids' classrooms, and they are told, "Well, none of that is 'CRT.' CRT is actually a graduate level course of study only found in universities and isn't in any K-12 schools anywhere." And these parents don't care a whit about that, because they are extremely upset about what **is** being taught at their kids' schools. The district I left a couple of years ago had a mandatory training with a company called "Social Centric." It was an eight-hour "implicit bias" training. At the training (which I didn't attend), people had to make symbolic "chains of oppression" to wear, form anti-racism conga lines, and other things. The pre-training survey had questions like "Put an X on the spectrum where you think the United States falls. Is the US 'the land of the free, home of the brave,' or 'land of the thief, home of the slave?'" Several teachers were upset later because of the offensive, inane content, but also the loss of an entire Saturday. I'm sure that the fact checkers would be quick to point out that what Calvin Terrell presented there "is not CRT." And in the end, that is a distinction without a difference. This is the experience that the pro-CRT people are fighting against in their losing PR battle. The giant Chandler Unified School District made national news when it paid half a million for Corwin's training out of California. When angry parents stormed the school board meeting, administrators insisted that they of course weren't using the offensive parts of the training people didn't like, only the "good" (all whites are racist, systemic racism infects everything, not enough to not be racist --- you have to be actively anti-racist, etc.). That didn't matter in the PR battle, either. Why pay a lot of money for something that you're admitting has a lot of stuff objectionable to the community in it? And, the objectionable stuff was being taught, despite administrator denials. This is leading to woke districts changing their terminology to do an end run against passed laws and community standards. cf. this sting video from conservative Nampa/Caldwell/Meridian Idaho.

We are very much like this in our home. We aren't leaving the Church, don't support any splinter groups, but stay true to things that have changed that we feel shouldn't have. By "stay true," I mean we teach our kids "the lay of the land" (what used to be in the temple, etc.). We keep the fire of faith burning in the altars of our hearts and hearths, and we're not worried about the Church losing its way. Like you, we believe God will correct things in time that need to be corrected. It's refreshing for many people, too. There are a lot of active, attending people who have been disturbed by some/many of the changes, but are sticking with the Church (as they should). It's comforting to them when they know that there are other knowledgeable believers in the same boat. It's more important than ever before to have our own oil in our own lamps