Calm

Here’s another possibility generated when I asked for a nonreligious version of the Ten Commandments: Treat others as you wish to be treated. This is a common ethical principle found in many cultures. Seek truth and understanding. Strive to learn and understand the world around you through evidence and reason. Be mindful of the consequences of your actions. Consider how your choices affect yourself and others. Take responsibility for your actions. Acknowledge your role in the outcomes of your decisions. Promote well-being. Act in ways that foster happiness, health, and a positive environment for yourself and others. Respect individual autonomy. Recognize and respect the right of others to make their own choices. Be open to new ideas and perspectives. Be willing to change your mind when presented with new evidence or different viewpoints. Strive for justice and fairness. Work to create a society where everyone has equal opportunities. Cultivate empathy and compassion. Try to understand and share the feelings of others. Leave the world a better place than you found it. Contribute to making the world a more positive and sustainable place for future generations

If it was solely the content of them that matter, then posting a version that combined the ‘obvious’ laws of the most common religious faiths in the US while leaving out the religious laws would be sufficient. A statewide or national honor code could be created. But it has to be the Ten Commandments instead? The Buddhist version is useful as well and is more comprehensive, imo. Here is the AI summary provided with me trimming off anything that leans towards what is often seen as religious, even when it isn’t. 1. Right View/Understanding: This involves understanding the Four Noble Truths, which state that suffering exists, is caused by attachment, can be overcome, and has a path leading to its cessation. Me: given this is a religious perspective, I would change this to something more generic like ‘be aware that actions have consequences’ 2. Right Resolve/Intention: This refers to cultivating intentions based on non-violence, compassion, and renunciation, rather than harmful thoughts like hatred, greed, or ill-will. 3. Right Speech: This involves abstaining from lies, gossip, harsh language, and idle talk, and instead speaking truthfully, kindly, and constructively 4. Right Action: This means acting ethically, avoiding harmful actions such as killing, stealing, and sexual misconduct, and instead engaging in actions that benefit others. 5. Right Livelihood: This entails earning a living in a way that does not harm oneself or others, avoiding trades that involve violence, deception, or exploitation. 6. Right Effort: This involves actively cultivating positive mental states and abandoning negative ones, striving to prevent unwholesome qualities from arising and to nurture wholesome ones 7. Right Mindfulness: This is the practice of being aware of one's thoughts, feelings, and physical sensations in the present moment without judgment. 8. Right Concentration: This involves developing focused attention and mental discipline through meditation.

This is a PS to my previous post. While Christianity Today spoke favourably of patriotism, I personally am less inclined to straight out thumbs up approval as too often I have seen “I love my country” morph to “I love my country best” to “my country is the best” and the latter two are prone to leading the individual to diminishing and even ridiculing other countries because of the need to justify those feelings or in the last case prove the statement of fact made. Call my view a more nuanced, reserved opinion about patriotism. I thoroughly approve of “I love my country”, I support even gushing about it; but am mildly cautious about someone who feels the need to state “I love my country best” and am very concerned when I hear “my country is the best” if said in anything but a immediate way like telling someone “you’re the best” meaning at that moment rather than all the tIme and for everyone. Can you imagine telling a neighbour that one’s own family is the best on the block and not in the way that means it’s the best just for you, but in comparison to everyone else as well? Would your neighbours feel welcomed in your home or even wanted? And what would the community be like if everyone had that attitude? I would find a study comparing the version of patriotism with desire to travel to other countries as well as one’s opinion of one’s travels quite interesting. Iow, would someone who holds the view “I love my country” enjoy their travels more than someone whose view is “my country is best”. I can see someone with the “is best” view needing to look for negatives in their experiences to support their belief their home country is better than the country they are traveling in and they would therefore not only tend to focus more on what’s wrong than what’s right about their experience, but also hold themselves back or keep a distance because they are at least in part in critiquing mode rather than just being able to embrace or immerse themselves in the experience.

I believe it only shows your identity to you as it opens up for each person in their own profile if it’s like Facebook. Why don’t you PM it to me and I can test if I can see your actual name or not. Pretty sure you have told me it before, but since I think of people typically with their alias, I often forget actual names unless I use those as well…so chances are I will forget it again and even if I don’t, I won’t share it.

I like this discussion of Christian Nationalism. It also has a good, imo, discussion about the inherent problems with nationalism (very simplified, a nation is made up these days of more than one social/culture group—groups which overlap, have fuzzy borders, may be poorly defined or be defined differently by different groups such as many excluding Saints from the Christianity culture group—and the government privileging one group over the other creates inequality and eventually oppression) https://www.christianitytoday.com/2021/02/what-is-christian-nationalism/ My bold ——— At the very least, imo when christian nationalism is capitalized, it is the name of a particular ideology…one that is riddled with problematic political ideology. (Capitalizing something turns it into a proper noun, proper nouns refer to specific persons/groups, places, or things. For example, “psychology” could refer to a person or group’s pattern of behaviour or the psychological factors of a situation as well as the study of the mind, but Psychology is obviously just the study of the mind/psyche). I think there is enough baggage attached to the term even “christian nationalism” should be avoided unless referring to that particular political ideology, especially in verbal dialogue where one can’t see the lack of capitals. I see nationalism as always problematic anyway as it’s not simply patriotism or a love of and desire to protect one’s country, it’s much more. To avoid confusion, one could go to the effort of defining every time one talks about one’s own version of christian nationalism, but since there are other ways to discuss Book of Mormon teachings than using a label that has been attached to something quite different in other people’s eyes. It’s like arguing since we (LDS) believe there are three people in the Godhead, everyone should feel okay if we use “the Trinity” instead of the Godhead to talk about it. After all, “trinity” can be defined simply as three in unity or even just “group of three people or things” (google’s first definition of the term) and that fits the Godhead if the unity is in ideals, purpose, etc. The fact that those we would be discussing would be so confused and probably less informed about the Godhead afterwards due to likely attaching at least some wrong ideas to our beliefs on this subject because of misuse of the term “Trinity” is a very, very good reason not to adopt the term even if we are trying to ‘talk their language’, pointing out similarities of belief, just like the sound of the word “Trinity”, or whatever. Not trivializing anything here as I prefer lots of words based on primarily sound. If it wouldn’t lead to great confusion I would choose to use Trinity over Godhead anytime. However, if I adopted to use “the Trinity” because of my personal preference, I would have to add with practically every use an explanation such as “in this case meaning three persons who are three beings, not three persons who are one being) and even then the conversation would often be a mess and being constantly derailed with “Trinity, why are you using Trinity here? I thought you were LDS?” and other variations as well as me having to correct assumptions by others like “no, I don’t believe in the Catholic view of the nature of God” or “no, I don’t believe in three persons in one being…unless of course that is a social unit like family”….just as every time you (longview or teddyaware or anyone else) use the term Christian Nationalism the conversation gets derailed and assumptions are made about your political ideology that are likely untrue.

It could be him, but it is not that unusual for someone to play these types of games of cherry picking and avoidance.

That is the mentality (mixed in with the obsession to categorize that was the Enlightenment, categorizing that often included defining what was more evolved/superior) that created the idea of race, so I am not sure it can be unstuck. English literature from those time periods often depict the Scots and Welsh as more primitive, less intellectual, more emotional than Englishman as well, othering to justify oppression. An interesting discussion on Reddit (some language) on the different view of race and discrimination/prejudice in Europe as opposed to American. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEurope/comments/18yzk0c/comment/kgfu908/ Treatment of the “lower classes”, meaning less economically fortunate, mirrors in some ways treatment of nonwhite “races” in America.

This is an excellent starting point.

And what would the purpose be for this and how did it come to pass? And what is this ethnic background as it exists in eternity? Are there cultural differences between these ethnicities? As in each ethnicity celebrates the birth of a spirit child differently? Are there the material differences? If so, what purpose do these material differences serve? Is one racial group taller than others? Does one racial group have different hair color than others? Different skin color than others? If God the father is of one ethnicity and his wife another, what ethnicity do their children belong to? In this world if people of different ethnicities marry, after several generations the ethnicities do not become better defined, but more blended. The great great grand children tend to carry a mix of physical characteristics from their ancestors (for example, while my outer appearance seems to follow more my maternal grandfather’s makeup, based on how my body reacts/health, I appear to internally have a stronger physical resemblance to my paternal grandfather, where my sister externally takes after our paternal grandmother and internally maybe our maternal grandmother to some degree, but also very different from her, so quite a mix). Why would it be different in the eternities? Are the eternal ethnicities/races required to only marry others of the same race? If not, if what ethnicity does a child belong to, that of their father or mother and how is this determined? Assuming spiritual DNA functions identical to physical DNA, what characteristics do spiritual genes determine? Personality? Spiritual strength? Just cosmetic and if cosmetic, what would be the eternal significance of being locked into one appearance we did not choose for eternity? Have more questions, but need to stop for now…

You have already done that, lol. I started the thread and in this case don’t mind derails.

I don’t have any either, but I believe in most cases a victim who is not a minor should have the right to not give evidence if they so choose. It is one way to give them some sense of control in their lives. With minors, situations can be difficult. It is not always better or even safer to put victims in foster care. We need to do better with foster care before making it the automatic solution in cases of child abuse, imo. Children need to be evaluated to see if separation from both parents will add more significant trauma or not (I believe there should be no unsupervised contact with their abuser, but if the other parent knew and did nothing, it needs to be evaluated why and if harm will continue in some way). I am fine with supervision always being required with suspected abuse, not so much isolation of child from parents (a close relative as a toddler was taken away from his parents when they took him into the hospital because of weird bruising, it later came out it was the babysitter hitting him with a hairbrush when he cried; it is likely the separation from any familiar person while the investigation took place contributed more to his severe anxiety and depression as a child and youth and I view it as unnecessary as the parents could have been allowed to stay with him at least part of the time under supervision rather than him thinking they had abandoned him).

They are being taught to seminary and institute kids. My memory is this has been happening for a couple of years. I think it’s been discussed here, but it’s possible I first learned of it when talking with a friend who teaches institute. Eventually those exposed to the essays in class will be most members. Converts who were older when they joined may not be intentionally exposed, but since they will be in classes with members who did learn about the essays when they were younger, chances are the info will come up in discussions since it will be seen as standard knowledge. See here for an example: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-seminary-teacher-manual-2025/453-doctrine-and-covenants-132-1-2-34-66?lang=eng

So victims who don’t want a family member, friend or whoever to be arrested for whatever are equally guilty of their own abuse/rape?

How can they be not be off the mark if hell, the focus of the ad, is not described with literal flames in LDS theology? How is the second coming relevant to hell (since any burning if it is literal occurs prior to hell)? Using irrelevant evidence does not establish an argument.

Also as a pretense that one actually engaged with the other when they didn’t as in when this gets pointed out “agree to disagree” is their excuse to leave the conversation. This is not to say it is always or mostly used this way. There are valid reasons to use it…as in when arguments starts getting repeated.

Then you are off topic because we are talking about the ad which is about hell, not the second coming.

Do you think God laughs when he sees his children taking paths he doesn’t want them to take?

If they choose to accept the Gospel fully in the next life, they are exalted in the same way any Saint must choose to fully accept the Gospel or they will be unable to receive exaltation.

They have published several opinion pieces by him. As long as they give the opportunities to other politicians of differing views, I see that as a good thing. https://www.deseret.com/authors/mike-lee/ There was also these ones: https://www.deseret.com/politics/2025/07/15/elmo-grok-and-anti-semitism-online/ https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2025/07/14/utah-public-lands-indigenous-native-american-history/ https://www.deseret.com/politics/2025/07/10/mike-lee-urges-supreme-court-hear-religious-freedom-football-case/ https://www.deseret.com/politics/2025/07/08/utah-senator-mike-lee-has-the-youngest-chief-of-staff-in-the-us-senate/

I don’t see why the ad is offensive even if it was based on misunderstanding of LDS doctrine***. It seems a relatively generic portrayal of hell, after all. Now if it was an intentional misrepresentation made to connect LDS with a more extreme religious viewpoint to present LDS as equally extreme or to make nonLDS believe our doctrine is less inclusive or hopeful than it actually is, that would be different. But the idea of sinners burning in hell is hardly an extreme view, it’s a widespread Christian belief as far as I am aware, though I believe a large number of denominations also view such descriptions as metaphorical/symbolic. Such an ad might even make some less aware individuals view LDS as more mainstream Christianity than it is. Plus if the ad reflects a moment in the play that is a dream sequence, which apparently it does (which was unknown to me when I first posted this thread), it’s not even that odd of a choice. It’s not even that unrealistic like much of the material in the play is (such as one of the Ugandans thinking a manual typewriter is a cell phone**** when iirc the time period the play is likely set in based on cultural references had 60% of Ugandans owning one, I did the research when the play was previously discussed on the board). Many LDS would possibly be saturated in visuals representing hell as burning fires if they spent much time watching fantasy/horror shows or even cartoons** or just hearing references in nonLDS Christian speech to the fires of hell; it would be hardly surprising for a LDS to have a dream featuring such a hell even if we don’t believe such actually exists. I have no desire to go back and read the script to see if it presents the dream as representing real fears of the young elder or not, so I am not ruling out this still falls into the category of caricatures of our beliefs, but if it does, then the misrepresentation is the responsibility of the writers and not whoever came up with the ad campaign as I previously supposed when I thought this reference to hellfire a total creation of the ad people…unless by chance they are the same people, which seems unlikely. **All Dogs Go to Heaven also has a hellfire dream sequence: https://youtu.be/leCCjuw4GdE?si=uG6OPV66cNRW-Dlw ***my initial description was “odd” as I have never viewed the ad as inherently offensive as for me it would depend on the motivations for choosing such a detection, which cannot be known with the limited info given. I find the musical itself highly offensive, though much, much more for its racial caricatures than for the religious ones, but that’s on the writers because they appear to me to be familiar enough with LDS beliefs and could easily have learned more if they desired so the misrepresentation/lampooning seems intentional to me. I don’t transfer the intent to offend to others involved unless they know better and go along with the intention to misrepresent, but that is not something that can be seen with very limited evidence, such as this ad. ****apparently they got enough criticism for this offensive caricature that they modified the joke into something less stupid. They made several other changes as well. Here is an interesting discussion on Reddit about the changes. It demonstrates that at least some of the audience understood the caricature of the Ugandans as representative of the racism/lack of actual cultural awareness and experience with African people/culture of Mormons, where my guess is LDS quite possibly have greater experience and awareness than the typical American due to the missionary outreach we do. Be warned there is language, deleted in the above. https://www.reddit.com/r/Broadway/comments/rlziqq/changes_made_to_the_book_of_mormon/ Btw, I don’t see viewing the musical as offensive as that controversial or biased since South Park is famous for being offensive (I have to go by reports since I have only seen a few clips from it, it’s not a style of entertainment I find funny or interesting in general). It would be out of character for the creators to avoid intentional offense it seems to me.

Yes, just because something might be currently popular does not mean it’s actually accurate in identification. Bite mark identification isn’t that reliable. https://digitalcommons.collin.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1122&context=quest#:~:text=Although the field of forensic,et al.%2C 2018).

It certainly makes as much sense as multiple Heavenly Mothers given it’s likely not a numbers issue (with eternities past and eternities future, there’s no need to rush).

Yes, so it would be interesting to find out total hours of online missionary work vs teaching vs service vs tracting as well as any other forms of contact.

So a random question just popped into my brain and I am throwing it out to everyone. I know early in the Church, apostles were sent on international missions and could be away from the center of the Church for significant time periods. I am wondering when that stopped. I know some apostles have served as mission presidents or over regions. Did any do that as apostles and if so, when did apostles start functioning solely out of Salt Lake area as a home base (going on tours of the mission field, but never having a permanent residence outside of SL? I know George Albert Smith was president of the British and European missions, but for just two years apparently (1920-21). Was he considered living in Britain at the time? His wife went with him, serving as RS head for Europe while there, so I assume so.

Do you have a graph of the rate for total membership from the beginning of the stats, 1920? I would be interested to see how it’s changed over the last hundred years. Of course smaller total membership means smaller baptism numbers might be a higher rate than higher baptism numbers with a much larger membership and there are also many other factors involved, such as improved communication and travel ability (not only for missionaries, but for church leadership), so I am not sure what nuanced analysis such graphs could actually supply.