let’s roll

very enthusiastic and excited infatuation about someone or something. "moviegoers went gaga over Harry Potter"

There’s a golf ball up there that would provide evidence…🙂. Frankly, I have no problem believing there was a moon landing in 1969. I do struggle with the characterization of another moon landing nearly 60 years later as some marvel of science. There are some more practical reasons for going back that I think have been largely ignored, supplanted by lots of space gaga.

Just in time. 😉

AFTER ALL What does it mean that His grace will save after all that I can do. Does He stand aside and watch me try til I ultimately fail And once I’m spent I stand aside to watch His strength prevail? Or will He lift me from the very start Do we strive, labor, and weep together, and not apart Perhaps after all, all that I can do is ask in faith that He abide with me To hasten my conversion from who I am to who I want to be

Most of the Venezuelans I’ve spoken to are living in Peru or were visiting Peru while living in Bolivia, Columbia or Ecuador. Many of the Venezuelans I’ve spoken to in the U.S. are relatives of the Venezuelans I met in Peru. Part of my role in Peru was tracking the Church properties in Venezuela that were taken by the Venezuelan government, including being briefed by lawyers in Venezuela regarding political/government affairs in that country.

Millions of Venezuelans disagree with you. I’ve had a chance to speak with scores of them. They’re not rebels with muskets but they are as hungry for self determination as the colonists were and have pined for U.S. intervention for years. They welcome U.S. involvement to augment their quest for self determination via a functioning democracy. Since they haven’t seen any benefits from their countries natural resources for years, they welcome U.S. oil company investments to modernize and monetize those resources, knowing that such investment isn’t certain because of the history of instability of capitalism in Venezuela. While your outlook is filled with a long list of horrible what ifs, Venezuelans see, for the first time in many years, a reason to hope for a better day for themselves and their country. The next step for many of them is to see sufficient evidence of stability, civil and economic, to make moving back home a wise decision and most agree that the only way that will happen is with some level of continuing U.S. involvement.

Maybe you can read up on it and let me know why you think the motivations of the French were so morally pristine.

Lucky for us the French didn’t feel the same way.

Condolences to you and your family Navidad. Having an adult son who is profoundly autistic (non-verbal), I feel a kinship with you and an acute sense of your loss. Because our son’s cognitive disability is such that he is unable to make informed decisions and is thus not accountable for his actions, he has not been baptized. I know you have close ties to the LDS community in your area so you may already be familiar with that tenet of the LDS faith, and not being aware of the severity of your son’s autism, don’t know whether it would apply in his case. My heart mourns with you.

The windows of heaven opening for tithe payers, like the glory of God being made manifest in the lives of those with physical or mental challenges, can occur in a variety of ways. We do well to be open to His omniscient will on how those blessings manifest themselves, thereby learning to recognize and benefit from His will, rather than expecting our will to be done.

Are there 10, 20 or 1,000 angels dancing on the head of that pin? Wait, is that a pin or a thumbtack? Just trying to cool the temperature a bit. Carry on everyone, you all seem to be intrigued by the dialogue.

Yes. And the why should be self evident…blessed are the peacemakers. Shalom.

It’s fair to characterize a correct view of God as exaltation. For this is life eternal, to know Thee, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent. (I posted this before I had read the entire thread, so now realize this point has already been raised).

Agreed. It’s about our wanting His will, not ours (to the extent it conflicts with His), to be done. Not to satisfy His ego but because we come to understand, as He already knows, that to be able to join Him in His work, work that exalts through a process of agency that also results in suffering and damnation. A process that produces both bliss and sorrow, even Godly sorrow.

I’ve thought about this perspective for some time. Typically in the context of either a discussion when someone says “the God I worship…” or when or I’m pondering the boundaries of what God would have me understand in mortality, including the circumstances attendant to having a perfect knowledge of God in this life. The former is pretty straightforward. I’m not reticent to admit there are things I don’t know about God. So when someone professes certainty about what He would never do, i.e., “the God I worship would never…” I find it odd that mortals would deign to dictate to God and I admit that I view such as worshiping their own idea of god, rather than God Himself. The latter instance is akin to the reference in the podcast to the parable of the talents. To start, I’ve always believed that the reference in the parable to the number of talents given need not always be understood as a one time event…that is, we can be endowed with talents/knowledge/gifts/power in an iterative fashion and are invited to increase all of those through our faith and diligence. Doing so doubtless increase our understanding of God but one of the things I admit I don’t yet know about God is whether it is appropriate to ask to know Him perfectly in mortality and, if it is appropriate, when is it appropriate to ask. My working assumption is that since He knows my heart, He will prompt me if, and when, needed.

What are the principal reasons/purposes for Jesus’ advocacy before the Father on our behalf? Advocacy is often the term used to describe what lawyers to in an attempt to persuade a judge. Is Jesus’ advocacy trying to persuade the Father as part of the process of our judgment? My experience has been that many believe so. But what persuasion is required? Because God and Christ are omniscient, is there any reason to believe they are not both equally aware of who we are, what we have done, and the state of our heart? Because they are one and both love us perfectly, is there any reason to believe that there is a difference of opinion about us, our potential, our judgment? My belief is that Jesus will advocate for us before the Father not to change the Father’s mind about us, but to change our minds about ourselves. We will see, hear and feel first-hand the depth of the Savior’s love for us, His confidence in us, and His desire to have us join Him in His work. What could be more motivating and empowering than to witness such advocacy? Folks nowadays sometimes look to a “life coach” to counsel, guide, and motivate them through life’s challenges. If you’re looking for a title for Jesus’ role as advocate perhaps “eternity coach” will do.

I joined the thread because I thought you might appreciate some insight from a subject matter expert. You don’t, so I will move on.

Agreed. My wife shared a YouTube video the other day that began with a teacher telling a student to leave the class and making clear the student was never to return. The teacher then told the students what they had just witnessed was an instance of injustice and asked the students why none of them had stood up for the expelled student and then proceeded to answer his own question by saying no one had done so because the expulsion had not impacted them so they said and did nothing. The takeaway the teacher provided the students was that they should take action against injustice even if it didn’t impact them directly. My reaction to the video was that it was fundamentally flawed as a vehicle to promoting activism but it could be used to help teach skills in processing information and recognizing what additional information might be needed before forming, and acting upon, opinions/beliefs. My question to students after watching the video would be what did you think of the teacher’s advice. Reasonable minds could agree it’s sound advice, as long as the injustice is real. Follow up questions would revolve around what facts the students had when the student was expelled that would support a conclusion that they were witnessing an injustice. Might there be valid, justifiable reasons for a teacher to expel a student from a classroom. One doesn’t have to think too long or hard to come up with circumstances that would justify expulsion. That said, would other students always be aware of those circumstances? Of course not. Using the video as a tool demonstrate how to process information, a student responding to the question of why they did not object to the “injustice” they had witnesses could say: 1) what I witnessed was insufficient to conclude that an injustice had taken place since there are any number or reasons for a teacher to justifiably expel a student from class, and 2) it’s reasonable for me to believe my teacher is in a better position than I am to know whether there are circumstances which justify the expulsion. I don’t know how the video is actually used in classrooms, if it is used at all, but on its face it can certainly be interpreted as advocating resistance any time we perceive injustice. In my view, its best use could be in teaching how we best confirm injustice has taken place before we advocate or act to try to resolve it. All too often today outrage, protest and professed certainty precede investigation and thoughtful evaluation of the fruits of that investigation. It helps to remember that studies using reputable methodology that produce results that can justifiably be relied on as the current best thinking on a given topic almost always include the caveat that further research is needed. That’s a wise mantra for us all.

As one who practiced FCC law in D.C., I’m flattered that you believe my explanation may have merit. And who am I to question your narrative about FCC history, your explanation of the FCC’s motivations, or expectations about what the FCC would have done in a hypothetical situation? And if, as you seem to fear, Larry Ellison, or anyone else for that matter, builds a “media behemoth”, what of it? We are all free to watch or ignore. Advertisers are free to utilize it or choose countless other means to reach potential customers. Such are the benefits of the modern boundless media environment. That same boundless media environment seems to render inconsequential the head of any one particular news outlet. With countless choices, savvy news consumers are free to find media outlets that provide needed context, report facts without varnish, and flesh out important information that wasn’t shared, for whatever reason, by the source of any particular story. And having to piece together such elements independently is often worth the effort necessary to do so.

I was trying to gently point out that you had conflated monopoly concerns with FCC review and approval. FCC approval was required because broadcast licenses changed hands. CBS News could have been spun out and sold to Skydance Media without FCC approval. Similarly, since CNN holds no FCC licenses it could be spun out and sold without FCC approval. Monopoly/antitrust issues in corporate mergers are reviewed by the DOJ and the FTC under the Hart Scott Rodino Act. The HSR review of the Paramount-Skydance deal was completed more than a year before FCC approval.

How familiar are you with the framework, intent, and application of U.S. antitrust laws? How do you think those laws would be applied to media companies? Media companies can create content and/or manage distribution of content (programming). Since the central themes of antitrust laws are price fixing and restraint of trade, you can see how there might have been monopoly concerns around mergers involving companies holding FCC licenses when over the air broadcasting was the dominant distribution mechanism. But in today’s environment cable and the internet, especially the latter, make barrier to entry arguments for distribution seem far fetched. The same can be said for price fixing in the distribution space. In a world where there were only three television networks, a company wanting to run television ads to a national audience might have a credible antitrust concern if two of those three networks wanted to merge, but now digital national advertising can be done effectively which creates competition for traditional broadcasters and cable. And for a consumer looking to acquire content YouTube TV, Hulu, Fubo, and Sling, are all competitors with traditional broadcasters and cable. Courts seeing that many competitors would need to have clear evidence of collusion to find a restraint of trade or price fixing violation. As for content, at this point it’s self evident that there isn’t much of a barrier to entry for content creators. Podcasts being a prime example. Declining network and cable news ratings are evidence that consumers have, and are choosing, alternative sources for news. That competition makes an argument that there would be a monopoly issue in the merger of two companies with news programming seem like a loser. Your thoughts?

Likely because I didn’t have a great relationship with my biological father. He left my mother with 5 children under the age of 12 and provided neither alimony nor child support. Nevertheless, we children had a great childhood, almost exclusively because of my mother.

I think Pres. Eyring will stay put. There’s a chance that two additional counselors may be called. As you know, three counselors is not unprecedented

Imagine fans opposed to the chants raising their voices (e.g. singing the school fight song or booing to show their displeasure) loud enough to drown out the obscene chant…or the band doing the same. Or players and coaches taking a knee on the sideline and the AD announcing over the PA system that the game will not continue until the objectionable behavior ceases. After the fact apologies arise from the false premise that little or nothing can be done in the moment to mitigate bad behavior. I think these ideas (and I’m sure with some focus we could identify more ideas) point to the fact that with a little thought and some resolve we will find we are not powerless…school officials who state the objectionable actions don’t reflect the values of the school should find ways to engage in activities, in the moment when the objectionable activities are taking place, that do reflect the school’s values.

If the conference had its member schools make an announcement before games that inappropriate fan behavior can result in an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty (15 yards) and trained officials to call such penalties when they witness such conduct (e.g. throwing things on the field, profane chants), I believe that such real time game impacting consequences would do much more to mitigate bad behavior than after the fact apologies.