Calm

Some extremely long posts that miss the actual point do it even less.

Why?

Haven’t read complaints. Are any upset because of no wings?

Went looking for a spear like that one and came across this article that agrees with your descriptions: https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2026/11/03/the-chosen-season-6-upsets-fans-with-native-american-african-angels/ Also pointed out angels could look dang weird, so why the rants? “ The Bible doesn’t really align with the complaints here in terms of how it describes angels, in that they take many forms from exceedingly normal to totally bizarre. We have: Angels that look like totally average humans, like the ones who came to Abraham or went to Sodom. Angels that are more intimidating with an “appearance like lightning” and pure white clothes, one that shows up at Jesus’ resurrection. Angels seen in prophecy which have four faces, human, lion, ox, and eagle, with four wings and bronze feet. Angels that attend God with six wings that are called Seraphim, which stems from a word that means “burning.” The point here is that there are a whole lot of different types of angels, and the ones with two feathery wings and gold halos and robes and harps are not really described in the Bible at all. So it stands to reason that sure, there could be warrior angels taking the form of human fighters across time. Even if that format isn’t mentioned specifically in the Bible, it seems clear that angels can take many forms. We’ll see how fans react when the full episode is out.”

I speculate that communism might work on a small community where it is easier for the person on the street to see the lifestyles of those in charge so it will be more difficult to set up a hidden class system. I think with any government, the more transparent the better, which often means big is not always better. Communism has been tried in religious communities, for example. Probably the closest mankind has gotten, imo. Russia was definitely not a communist state even if it pretended to be. Never been to China, but from what I have heard, class is still going strong, beside the usual elite, there is a major difference between urban and rural. Not actual communism, no matter what the label. I don’t think they even typically claimed to be communism, but working towards that, but haven’t researched much. Now can the ideologies tied to communism actually work given human nature or are they doomed to be derailed eventually…that could be a decent discussion, imo.

Btw, according to chat, only Lenin and Stalin identified as Social Democrats, the rest did not, so it’s odd you are using them as evidence.

And social democracy with socialism. (Did look up stats to doublecheck my memory using AI, but commentary is all my own, so no quotes; on my phone so no links today…this is common knowledge after all.) The best countries to live in if one cares about quality of life rather than wealth (and personally I think anyone who cares more about what they possess than how they live is dysfunctional at some level) are the Nordic countries (excluding Iceland here in the calculations as it’s an outlier in many things, while the others hang out together for the most part). Their economies are social democracies that even allow the operation of capitalism!!! They have privately owned businesses, competitive markets, entrepreneurship and innovation, even stock markets. Their governments are based on a constitution that has the prime minister and parliament running the country (in those that are constitutional monarchies, the monarch is mostly ceremonial). They even have a variety of political parties and have had conservative and liberal governments, etc. Some are even having issues with far right gaining power….how can that happen in a socialist country? Because they are constitutional governments using social democratic policies….much like what many liberals in the US want…and for very good reasons, given the examples. What do they have that the US doesn’t have? Much higher health care rates due to universal health care. And they pay less overall for that quality. They average around $7-8,000 per capita while the US is almost twice as much, close to $15,000. People who don’t want universal health care because they believe it will cost them more are not informed. In education, some are better than the US in some categories, some are worse, I would say the US holds its own in this area overall, but my guess this is because the wealthier families end up balancing out the more impoverished ones as the functional literacy rate is much lower for the US. Government spending per student is about the same, but more US dollars go to private than public compared to the Nordic countries (they invest more in the public education system, including more professional training for teachers, much more consistent quality across the board vs the elite schools that are available to the wealthy and the lucky scholarship kids. Crime….one of their countries, Finland iirc, is closing prisons because they don’t have enough prisoners to keep them occupied. But that doesn’t mean they are more at risk because of lax policing or justice system letting the bad guys get off with a slap on the wrist. They have more than 5 times less murders than the US does. Theft is hard to judge because of difference in reporting practices, including reports of minor theft. They have significant more reports of minor theft, but much lower rates of violent crime. It makes more sense to me their attitude to crime is its worth it to report minor thefts because something will be done about them, it won’t get lost among the more serious stuff, but I need to research more to confirm that. Spending on crime prevention is also much less than in the US, almost half in some countries. So less crime, better health and education for all their citizens…all for less money. These governments were mostly established using constitutional reform, elections, etc. Finland is an exception as there was a revolution—the Reds (the actual socialists) lost. And yet somehow social democracy (as in such programs framed in a constitutional republic—like the US) is inherently oppressive and violent because it’s really socialism at its heart, not reforms applied within the existing democracy… Btw…on one measure for liberty, the Nordic countries score in the high 90s (Finland is 100). The US scores 84. This is consistent with many such measures. Another measure of Freedom put out by the Cato institute iirc, has the US second lowest in the group, but still playing in the same ballpark. So much for oppression and personal and economic freedom. Social democratic reforms do not equate to socialism nor are they inherently violent or oppressive. They can be an excellent way to go for governments who care about all their residents.

I have a friend who is checking on this. Another one remembered having one and then not, but can’t remember the reason it wasn’t allowed…was thinking safety issues like hay bales and candles (mice and fire hazards), but you can use artificial trees and not put lights on them even, so now we are both depending on the first to satisfy our curiosity. Hopefully he will be able to find out. Remind me to check my email if you don’t see a post here as that’s an address I don’t have to check daily and it can go for a week or more between looking in.

The images are too dark for me to pick out anything distinctive. It does appear that the one with the bow is Native American and the one with the spear is female who appears to be Black to me due to what facial features I think I can see, but is the spear or clothing a reference to African culture? The third is too indistinct for me for even facial features but looks male, might an Asian, might be something else. It did come across to me as going for a more universal look. Not sure I like the pure warrior/secret assassin look, but that is certainly biblical in some places (angels not only deliver messages, they destroy armies). I wonder if anyone complaining has an issue with Michael Landon as an angel. Certainly referred to a non biblical culture with him (even if his dad was Jewish). Then there is the Irish angel in Touched by an Angel. Both very ‘white’ characters. I can see if the complaint is they are out of place, highly unlikely to be seen walking around Palestine in the markets, etc. But does the Bible restrict angels in that fashion, matching the culture they appear in or is it just assumed? Have there been portrayals of angels before? (Haven’t watched the show)

Your link to the article just goes back to your post.

This is exactly what I have a problem with the use of socialist in our current political discussion. It has too often been broadened unreasonably just as Nazi and fascist is to become a pejorative for opponents, misrepresenting social democracy as if equivalent to socialism…or the slippery slope, etc. Its also why I am not wasting time scolding Nehor over his imo improper use of Nazi, because I am guessing he sees many (most?) people advocating for "Christian Nationalism” are, I am guessing, intending to convey an ultranationalist, authoritarian Christian state***. But in his view (possibly) they don't want to actually say that, as it almost immediately sounds creepy and authoritarian. So we get evasions and equivocations and bright and airy and cheerful characterizations of Christian Nationalism to get it implemented. The compulsory element is what happens after the changeover…though in some ways I bet he thinks we haven’t had to wait that long (ICE). ***Christian Nationalism, in the sense that I see others, possibly Nehor but he may use another, incorrectly using the term by going to the extreme positions as if ‘mainstream’, has a different sine qua non: the compulsory replacement of constitutional government and religious pluralism with a state-sanctioned Christian moral and political order. That is not a marginal accommodation of religious values within an existing constitutional framework; it is the abolition of the secular foundation of the constitutional order that the American system presupposes.

I think my post explains that well enough if you had read it to the end before asking.

Since some here might be as easily distractable as I am, posting this before I forget about it until it is too late!

I agree that Fascist and Nazi should be tightly defined and used for the correct political ideology. It is extreme enough it needs to be precisely used so it can used for an effective warning***. I did not like it when I noticed Nazi started to be used in a humorous way (soup Nazi which mainstreamed the usage iirc, grammar Nazi, etc) and I still don’t. I see a related*** problem with term “socialist”, though that it is typically misapplied too broadly in politics in my experience….though maybe I am just out of the humor loop these days. In the US it is pretty meaningless, just tells me the other thinks the person is too liberal. ***I don’t think “socialist” is inherently problematic as an ideology, unlike fascism. Socialism is not inherently violent for one thing. So I see it should be kept precise for informational purposes in political dialogue, not because we need warnings against signs of it, though it can go too far just like capitalism.

My first response was thinking he is not female. Probably never homeless, etc. I wondered if he considered the other side of life and figured it wasn’t likely to be relevant to his audience, who demographically are more likely well off I believe. I do think avoiding anonymity would be best if one could trust those in power, but I prefer the teaching of acting morally no matter if someone knows who you are or not. I get that we are more likely to be civil if we know we can get in trouble if we are not, but if that’s the reason we allow ourselves to cross lines, we are in need of moral and emotional maturity. What if the Ku Klux Khan are the ones in power with access to one’s personal info? I worry about minorities—which LDS members are in most places—and any others not particularly welcomed in China and Russia. Not happy with some stuff going on in the US right now as well. In Canada, my husband had a couple of students had changed their names, the ultimate anonymity, so they can join the Church….with the approval of the First Presidency. We are much more likely to be able to change our own behaviour rather than others. Perhaps that is why he focused on the individual a the potential abuser rather than then a potential victim.

Was Nehor celebrating or suggesting in any way Kirk’s shooting was good? If not, I find your assumption that his reasoning to go the extreme of murder just because he might agree with some things those celebrating believe as not particularly in good faith. I would automatically call it trolling if you weren’t a long time poster. Right, because that needs to be said by someone like Nehor or perhaps me or seeking or ttribe or Mustardseed. Our conversation regularly takes us to applauding torture or murder and just general all over oppression, so it’s necessary to clarify because you might be wrong if you gave us the benefit of the doubt….like I bet everyone is currently giving you. How would you react if someone assumed you could be supportive of such extreme measures as killing ideological opponents or as called for by some extreme Christian nationalists just because you agree with some positions they hold (or appear to) ? You have certainly condemned others for assuming/implying you were a racist/bigot by taking your comments to a more extreme positions iirc. Why do that here? And you would not have celebrated if Hitler or one of his leaders or even a squad of soldiers on their way to the front had been assassinated by a resistance member? I am now curious, do you disapprove of the assassinations of Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi?

I find this an odd question since Nehor has only advocated limited and very context dependent violence (punching) against one type of ideology that he sees (correctly imo***) as inherently using violence and murder as a political tool. I suspect he sees more than just fascists as ideological opponents, but he has only advocated punching fascists in general, not any ideological opponent, iirc and I don’t remember him advocating killing even if he can understand why some go there iirc. I certainly understand why people kill oppressors, especially those who are violent or even who threaten their own lives or the lives of loved ones even though I would never advocate except as the very, very, very last resort in the case of severe, violent oppression and even then sometimes I see a martyr’s death could be a better response in some cases if it can be publicized enough to mobilize public opinion against oppression. Killing fascists in a war they most likely started or at least triggered with violence…don’t you yourself see that as a moral response? If so, I don’t understand why you jumped to acting as if the conversation was advocating killing any ideological opponents or killing them without any moral restraint. ***I asked Google if there were fascist governments that haven’t murdered people and it kept trying to correct it to “have”. When I finally convinced it I actually meant “haven’t”, it couldn’t find any.

I think with better technology that will be able to produce plant based food of all types and textures that fulfill all nutritional needs in healthier ways, animal products for food, clothing, furniture will likely fade away…maybe some for the very rich and decadent. The cost of using animals will become considered to be too inefficient, impractical for most. Once we move long enough away from being carnivores, I can easily see that turning into a general cultural morality issue given where the typical reaction is disgust since we are already partway there.

Nope, make them a martyr (not saying I endorse any for of violence or even ridicule, just saying)

Some of us like to respond to posts by quoting each relevant part so you know what we are specifically responding to for that comment. Can’t do that as easily with an image, so my guess is you will get less responses, at least maybe less detail. Would you mind sharing why you posted this? I always like to know the context for posting a topic with posters I am not familiar enough with to know if it’s a special interest, hobby, or something else. Welcome to the board, btw.

You want leaders to make stuff up? Is that how it works in your faith? Leaders fill out revelation with their own ideas and teach it as doctrine? Serious questions, trying to understand why you think LDS leaders, leaders of a faith that isn’t your own and you don’t believe in, should add unrevealed speculation to our doctrine. This happens more than enough unintentionally, people assuming they know what revelation must imply. If we add intentional speculation as well….

I agree about Dan and thanks for the mention…Will check Janega out. Always looking for scholars with wit.

It is a great place to start, imo. Not too technical, but has some very useful insights.

It is equipped to say what happens in its realm. To me it’s saying, if the rules are the world as we know it and have defined it, the data says it’s impossible. I think strong statements like this are the necessary result of the overwrought and illogical attempts to find scientific data for creationism within scripture, treating the Bible like either a science or history book. It needs to be clear if you insist on using it that way, it is impossible to prove faith positions on miracles. If you find it, you are messing with the data. It does a disservice to those trying to understand science. It does a disservice to those with faith, especially who are also trying to learn actual science and history methods, to lead them to think science and history methodologies can prove or even support faith in miracles (as in there being physical evidence), who once they find the truth, often then believe they have to give up faith if they have intellectual integrity because they haven’t been taught to look at scripture as something outside of science and only tangential to history, religious texts from different times and world views. Allowing that at sometime in the future new data might appear that provides evidence for miracles says nothing about the data we have now.

I think it does the opposite. It says a miracle is outside the discipline of historical method. It contradicts all the known laws of science, so it qualifies as an impossibility in terms of the study of science.