Calm

Sure because at heart we are likely all at least a little arrogant and often a lot, but we don’t have to be public about it and demonstrate another level/kind of arrogance and a willingness to hurt others. You can protect others you are concerned about by speaking to destructive behaviours. As okra implies, you don’t do this very often, I am thinking that is why it bothers me more than when some others do it. I admit there are a couple of people I dislike enough I let this weakness dominate my more reasonable self. In these cases there appears to me to be an intentional narcissistic and malicious desire to hurt others because they enjoy demonstrating the power to control others. Misguided efforts even if destructive don’t generally push that button for me. (Not saying Dan’s work is destructive, I do know a few people who think it is though.)

Nemesis would have to be desperate to make me a mod based on my previous behaviour (on ZLMB) and how I can’t stop myself from stepping in here to ‘help’ even as not a mod. I was way too earnest and wanting to fulfill expectations of everyone and ending up asking for direction way too much. I may have learned to relax more after 20 years and just do exactly what I committed to and no more, but I really don’t know if I would end up making more work for him or less.

There are listed 146 new members who signed up in the last week. In the last month, over 500. But in the last 6 months only 650ish iirc . I have never tracked members registering before so I am assuming the previous 5 months (around 70 in total or 15 per month on average) is typical these days. So I wonder if the spammer has been setting up for the last month. I guess it’s just writing a program and letting the bots do the work, but got to wonder how this setup accomplishes anything except to lead people to seriously consider just staying at home for vacation (the implication being if one needs all that information when planning travel, it must be just one big pain in the whatever to do). If so, could take awhile for the sleeper spammers among them to all activate. It’s not like Skylla has anything else to do though, right.

Verse 41 seems to suggest women can be married to more than one husband in the new and everlasting covenant if and only if God has appointed the second sealing/covenant. If it was always adultery, then why would the bolded section be required?

Why would polyandry be anymore adultery than polygyny?

The thread accidentally got deleted when Skylla was taking out the garbage (spam)

Poor Skylla thinking it was over with. Sleeper spam. How odd.

I don’t trust my memory and they might have been deleted anyway before I woke up, lol. That would make sense as I was wondering why Pyreaux had posted that out of the blue since it had been a few days iirc since we were spammed.

I felt like standing up and applauding when I saw the thread count in Social drop below 200 pages again, seeing you probably had to delete over a thousand pages of threads.

It has only been since the 13th (Pyreaux’s post about spam was posted on the 12th and it was the next day iirc). Seems longer, like two weeks, lol. Guess that is my board addiction altering my time sense.

There is a moderator who is blocking and eliminating spam daily, but without administrative powers, they can’t change the signing up for the board process or how many threads a new poster can make, which is what needs to be done. I am actually getting a bit worried about Nemesis. Hope nothing has happened to them.

Lol, I actually thought of volunteering to moderate one thing and only one thing and that is checking off on new posters who would have to write something that made sense and was relevant to the board as part of signing up if that is the way Nemesis wants to fix things (since I can’t remember a day in the last 20 years I haven’t visited the board I am probably a good choice for gatekeeper)

I highly doubt they thought it wouldn’t blow up. They would have to be oblivious of the last 2? 3? more? decades to think that and I don’t think they are. My guess is they knew it would blow up whatever they did and this was the simplest solution (not saying it was the best, I am not in the position to make that judgment).

Nvm….I need to put some major practice into patience these days

For a few hours at least. Appreciate the effort

I don’t think it’s appropriate to make public judgment of others’ faithfulness/commitment to the faith and depending on how moderators interpret this, could be breaking board rules as this is under banned behaviours: https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66538-board-guidelines-update-please-review-before-posting/ Criticize if necessary what he does, not who he is.

More info: https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/review-of-drew-brineys-book/#:~:text=The elder Woolley had numerous opportunities to,but no such accounts have been found.&text=Cannon%2C a counselor in the First Presidency%2C,and vows until they can be married.

I would like to know if Elder Petersen viewed the ordinations and claims of a higher priesthood as separate or as part of the revelation, not just the text that was floating around. After all, wouldn’t it require revelation to receive this new and quite novel doctrine as well as the instructions on how to perform the ordinations? There is actually no mention of such new secret authority in the John Taylor revelation we have, no mention of a new sealing authority, so there must have been more revealed for this to have occurred (unless of course it was made up by LC Woolley).. Seems one has to look on the new information as its own revelation received the next day or as a continuation of the 9/26/1886 revelation. Either way, there is no documentation of for it outside of LC Woolley, which is very odd if authentic and expected if he made it up, using the actual revelation as the hook to sell his scam (it was a scam imo even if he believed it was for a good purpose, which I think he likely did). If Elder Petersen was aware of the actual text, he would know there was no mention of secret authority to continue plural marriages, so perhaps he was referring to that alleged revelation shared in the reported meeting the next day. If he was not aware of the actual text (which seems unlikely, but possible if he was only concerned about the effects and was dismissive of something he saw as purely a creation of a rebellion/apostacy), he probably assumed there was some mention of secret authority, which would invalidate the alleged revelation in his view. the full quote: https://bhroberts.org/records/fbkJxk-nM9pwj/mark_e_petersen_disputes_the_authenticity_of_the_1886_john_taylor_revelation My bold And imo, the revelation about the higher priesthood and ordaining members to it is a false revelation concocted by Lorin Woolley. Now whether that was what Elder Petersen was talking about either on its own or in conjunction with the actual revelation of the previous day, I don’t know.

On rare occasions I do, but it would hardly be a hardship to spread them out. I apparently managed to go for a year or so without creating a topic if my profile is accurate.

I was curious about Mark E Peterson’s very emphatic statement about the revelation and what he might have as opportunities to learn firsthand from apostles who were alive in 1933 when the revelation was given to the Church by Frank Taylor. Peterson became an apostle in 1944, more than a decade since the First Presidency statement and the likely discussion among church leaders of the reception of the original. There were 7 apostles from 1933 who were still alive in 1944, but none of them were alive by 1974 when Elder Peterson made his comment, so noe one who was there to advise him on the facts at that time (obviously could have earlier). There might have been other potential sources still alive, but unless he had asked about the revelation in his earlier years as an apostle, he may have missed out except for David O McKay and Joseph Fielding Smith, the only ones who lasted to the 70s (all the rest died prior to 1960). This is not intended to prove anything. Just filling in some timeline context gaps for myself I thought others might be interested in. Others have done a lot of the work collecting the names for 1886 to 1933, I will put that together tomorrow.

It is interesting that Frank Taylor had so little interest in the revelation, he didn’t even remember he had it apparently…or at least that was the impression he gave to Pres Grant it appears. https://bhroberts.org/records/fbkJxk-rD6Snk/memorandum_from_j_reuben_clark_explaining_how_the_first_presidency_acquired_the_1886_revelation my italics

According to Reed Durham it was apparently authenticated at least by 1974. Michael Quinn had a chance to study in in 1971. See one the earlier posts of mine and weebles for quote and links I would not be surprised to hear they authenticated it again given the better techniques, but perhaps not since the provenance seems well established and it is not inconsistent with previous statements, etc from Pres. Taylor. What I am reading suggest the revelation itself is what it claims to be itself; what it’s not is all the stuff that got dumped on it by the storytelling of Lorin C Woolley (the more exaggerated stuff, I can see a meeting the next day to discuss it, just not the over the top affair Woolley claims). It’s understandable imo that some leaders were skeptical considering the baggage LC Woolley attached to it in the late 20s. If he had kept his mouth shut and not attempted to use it and his father to turn himself into a hero, perhaps there wouldn’t have been such a negative reaction.

Because organic means not contaminated by unallowed chemicals, many of which might blow over on to property, a buffer is required. If she/you are arguing the chemical farmer shouldn’t be allowed to spray closer than 25 feet to their property line to make it more consistent with what’s required for the organic farmer, buffers for everyone, or divide the difference so it’s 15 feet buffer zone on for each when next to each other (25 for each when solo) that gets to be sold as nonorganic, that does sound sensible to meet the needs of both. The chemical farmer can use the ‘organic’ pesticides etc that are allowed for their 15 feet buffer zone if they want to use that area, though of course like the organic farmer, can’t label it organic (because of the likelihood of contamination from the nonorganic chemicals they use elsewhere). Since being labeled organic opens the organic market to them, it does seem appropriate for it to be regulated to make sure customers get what they pay for. But I personally believe chemical treated produce (organic does have pesticides, etc, just ones that are deemed “natural”) should have that info on it as well and fees would need to be paid to provide confirmation they don’t use chemicals that aren’t on their label. One might also add a pollution cleanup fee for farmers using the more polluting types of pesticides and fertilizers, but that’s more regulation again…so to solve the problems the writer points out, I am not seeing less regulation, but more. Because there is not enough regulation barring them from doing so Which they can only do with the appropriate information, which growers won’t typically provide on their own, so regulation is needed. Deaths from raw milk may be relatively rare, but unnecessary illness would be a lot higher if it was legal everywhere imo. Costs are not outweighed by benefits (I think raw milk tastes better—I love raw goat milk, but I don’t see the science supporting it’s actually healthier). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9987020/#:~:text=Data source,228 hospitalisations and three deaths. I would love to see in-depth nutrition and healthy meal preparation become part of required education standards country wide so people understand the problems with many ultra processed foods as well as develop skills that allows them to take advantage of local produce more so there is less dependence on unhealthy ultra processed foods (not all processing is unhealthy, especially for those with FODMAP sensitivities; canned beans will cause less issues than homemade from dried for example). This would likely require more regulation as well as minimum wage increases as it typically takes more time to prepare less processed foods. Which takes time. Therefore higher wages so less second or third jobs needed for low income workers so that they have the time to visit and evaluate the local sources.

I am not sure about that. We at least condemn slavery, even if many support it by benefitting from it or even actively participate in it. I do believe possessing other humans automatically places them on a lower, ‘not as valuable as I am’ relationship, which I believe is a sinful, prideful attitude. We also give verbal support to equality. I wonder about charity….we have massive humanitarian efforts that are global and lots of local ones, but helping someone who comes to your backdoor like my great grandmother used to do isn’t common in the US at least. We may be more accepting of chastity sins, but premarital sex was very common before as well as adultery for men, which in some places were formalized by the government even (in old China, the government ran brothels and might even get high class ladies to appeal to the elite from disgraced officials’ wives and daughters who were sold as slaves, including to brothels as punishment, even if they themselves were innocent of any wrongdoing….I am getting this from modern literature, some from early 1900’s and have confirmed the selling into slavery of females in more historical info, but not necessarily to brothels). Treatment of women and children was pretty bad in the past allowing beatings and rape even, also requiring child labor laws (still happening, but again it’s condemned generally). Then there is the gap between poor and the most wealthy, as that does seem more accepting in many areas, but that gets into politics, so I will just throw that out and label it as wrong when corruption is used to get that amount of wealth for one person and people can decide for themselves if corruption is inherent (I honestly don’t know if it has to be) or only a subset are corrupt. So worse sinning in some areas, better in others imo. But impossible to come up with a concrete, objective number telling us what era was more sinful because of too many unknowns, past and present (outside of the utopia periods in scripture).

It’s not there yet though I am afraid. A moderator likely came in and blocked all spammers so far and then cleaned out here. But new ones are appearing in Social and once they hit 25, we will again have them in here. It looks like there is some time between posting the spam so it will be a few hours I am guessing till we see them. Maybe more if the lovely moderator pops in again. It’s quite sufficient to give me my little serotonin hit I get when I visit the board though, lol Even just a few posts a day keep me from withdrawal