Rain

I'm on my phone currently and googling and can't find it. I first saw it when I had a question about the atonement on the cross. I asked my stake president who was CES and he asked someone else in CES and it was on a long paper list of quotes that he gave me. I no longer have that now, sorry. If I remember when I have time on the computer I will do another search.

You're welcome. I know Mcconkie and Marion G Romney also used "recurred", but if I remember right McConkie may have been using it because Talmage did.

"Recurred" was one of the words from it that really had me with questions for decades. Here is a link to the church quoting it along with the page number: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2006/04/from-the-garden-to-the-empty-tomb?lang=eng I haven't tried looking anything up about "infinite".

I've been wondering if I have been reading you wrong. Real question: are you trying to make others feel stupid? The words you use sometimes feel like a bat over my head and I don't understand why you would say things this way if you knew how they were perceived.

Someone once asked me what the church thinks of "with his stripes we are healed" and that really got my mind going. There is so much with it all to unpack with the things the church teaches and how.

How do you know they are dictating to God and not expressing testimony of what they have come to know through the Spirit?

That became a really big thing the last few years I wore garments. Probably the biggest issue I ever had with them.

-He had on a loose robe - no - of most exquisite whiteness . It was a whiteness beyond anything earthly I had ever seen; nor do I believe that any earthly thing could be made to appear so exceedingly white and brilliant. - no - His hands were naked, - yes - and his arms also, a little above the wrist; - maybe - so, also, were his feet naked, as were his legs, a little above the ankles. - maybe -His head - yes - and neck were also bare. - mostly - I could discover that he had no other clothing on but this robe - the picture fits, but were they ever warn with no other clothing? I truly don't know - it was open, so that I could see into his bosom - no The description also does not describe the marks, ties, collar, button?, front opening etc.

And armpits.

The other problem is that those who have sensitivities were treated as complainers or less spiritual rather than looked at with empathy.

Yes, but even if there are other things that tell of a different pattern than robes which were revealed if God is all knowing he will have understood that not all fabrics and hygiene products will have been available then that we have now so it makes sense to me that a God who loves us would be ok with changes as things become available. Or rather changed things in the past because the resources/culture in the past were not available till the future/eternity. To be clear for those who do not know - I no longer believe in the church, but I do not see why the best and true things must be how they started when you have a God who knows the past and future. In the scriptures it talks about line upon line. Why can't garments be the same way with line upon line we learn what works, what materials are available, what cultures and weather we have around the world, what things are important etc?

You are right that fairness and due process under the constitution are deserved by everyone, including Tim.

@Navidad I had been hoping to help he and his wife since we are close, but unfortunately my husband caught whooping cough and I am coughing too, though no tests to confirm it. We are feeling fine, but we are not bringing it to the hospital. I've been in loose touch with Navidad and have talked with his wife. Last I heard she had surgery and has since been transfered to a normal room. I don't know if she has left the hospital yet or not. She let me know that Navidad was cleaning up the mud back at home so I assume that means there was flooding at their house. I'm sure they would appreciate continued prayers.

Things are starting to get slower again for me. Weather is nice here in AZ. Was windy and raining last time it was sliw.

This reminded me of something I read this year. Sorry, but I cannot remember at all which book it was. It was talking about putting yourself in another person's shoes. What was really interesting to me about the study done was that they found that when you had similar experiences that putting yourself in their shoes helped you know what they were feeling better, but those that did not have similar experiences did worse at it when putting themselves in the other's shoes. What was happening is that when they didn't have similar experiences when they put themself in the other's shoes their brain had to create a scenerio that was based on their lack of experience so trying to place themself in it actually pushed them further from the experience of the other person. I would love to see that study replicated to see if the findings still held true. The idea of putting ourself in the place of others is so widespread in our society and religions that it would probably be hard to convince others that it actually makes you farther from understanding, but it would definitely point to the importance of a Savior who has actual empathy if He is going be the judge as well.

From my experience, it can be a liability - if it stops you from feeling your own emotions, stops you from helping the other person or freezes you, but if it doesn't do those things, it can be a great strength in helping others.

It's interesting because we often talk about the emotional aspect of empathy (I definitely have, especially with Steven Covey's empathic listening), but when I think about applying it, and when I hear of others applying it then I think of it more similar to "understanding" which is probably close to what you are thinking of as cognitive empathy. Even in Covey's descriptions, he very clearly talks about how each side feels, but when you really look at it then it is more understanding as to how the other side got to the place where they are. One of the dictionary definitions I found of it is "The action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another." That really opens up to why people feel very differently about empathy - if you think empathy is just "experiencing feelings," you will have very different feelings/thoughts about where the word is used than if you think it is "being sensitive to...the experience of another".

Empathy?

Got it! I agree. Also, until you said historian in your last post I didn't catch somehow that he was one.

What concerns are you talking about? The new presidency? I don't have any concerns there. It doesn't matter to me who was put in or why.

I really hate to reply. I just feel kind of broken with so many conversations recently (politics) and I did not want to come across as an agumentative anti, but I love you and I didn't want you to think I was just dropping what you said. I think you are right that it could be superfluous especially if the guy doesn't have actual knowledge of what went through President Oaks mind. Did President Oaks say more than "after an extended process of fasting and prayer I have been inspired to call"? Because if that's all he said then some of what the guy said could be part of that process and that wouldn't be superfluous - if the guy actually has any real knowledge that it was part of the process. I'm assuming he doesn't because I would think he would havesaid something like 'when President Oaks told me, "___"' if he did have it. I've heard so many people say "I fasted and prayed about it" and they ignored the study it out part or they used their answer to manipulate others. (Definitely NOT saying that is what President Oaks is doing!) Just hoping that it will help people reading what I wrote to study it out and to see that how people study it out and how people get answers may be a little different than the next person, but it is not necessarily wrong. I realize this is important to me because I'm a little sensitive about how others see my own answers to prayers. Edit: I apologize for the font problems. I had to get on my computer to fix them, but they still won't change.

Arizona here and it was (not now) incredibly slow for a few days. Only this site, both wifi and 5G.

I don't think they are mutually exclusive not that you said mutually exclusive, just the idea of whether they are relevant. Many church members feel that "study it out" is a big part of receiving revelation. Everything I heard him say could be part of that process. I can see President Oakes really studying it out first. Also, I don't think that God always has one answer - like the one conference talk that says something about God trusting you to make the right choice I think often God would trust his prophet to make the right choice for who would work well with him, but that God would trust him if he chose someone else instead. I would agree there. Really, none of us who had no real relationship with President Nelson could possibly know why.

Working with refugees, asylum seekers and undocumented workers I would say it doesn't so much support illegal immigration, but more so it supports people who have immigrated illegally. I know that is a fine line. Lol. I don't think that is the church's style and they do have to be concerned about the safety of their employees/volunteers, but I'm mostly right there with you!

I think it is probaby because mentioning it would limit the viewers - people would tend to see it as a pro or anti mormon video verses a movie about someone who fought against the nazis.