let’s roll

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.

Work…or at least it was before I retired a few years ago.

I know getting your facts right is important to you so I will point out that misdemeanors are crimes. Some crimes, such as assault, can be either a felony or a misdemeanor, based on the severity of the act. The maximum penalty for a misdemeanor is a year in jail. That said, some immigration violations are considered civil, not criminal matters. Oddly enough, it is a crime to try to come into the country at a border checkpoint (port of entry) without authorization (e.g. sneak in in someone’s trunk) but if you cross the border without authorization anywhere else it is a civil violation. Like any other crime, immigration crimes can lead to imprisonment. The penalty for Civil immigration violations is typically deportation and deportation is a civil, not a criminal process. I will now take off my lawyer hat. Best regards.

Godspeed—an expression of good wishes to a person starting a journey. Good wishes to you on the remainder of your mortal journey and the entirety of your journey in the hereafter.

I respect your feelings. I admit this saddens me. I consider motherhood to be the preeminent role in all of mortality. I admit to being envious. If I had the power to choose any role in mortality, I would choose motherhood. I also consider my mother to be my hero and exemplar. I consider motherhood an elevated, not relegated, role. I wish you Godspeed.

Lots of wisdom here. We are accustomed to referring to every person as a son or daughter of God and our brothers and sisters. That spiritual kinship when taken to heart can engender love. But we know more about our brothers and sisters than their divine origins. We know that each of them, like us, loved God, heard and accepted His plan for us, and was excited about the opportunities for growth afforded by mortal life. That knowledge of a bond of love of God and a common purpose to grow closer to Him via our mortal sojourn can engender thoughts of brother and sisterhood much deeper and intentional than our common parentage. So regardless of how buried that love and excitement might currently be in a son or daughter of God, KGB agent, Chinese spy or otherwise, if I consider them first through the prism of their divine heritage and love of God, I can’t see them as my enemy. That said, one need not agree with or condone behavior that is reprehensible…I can strive to love you without agreeing with what you do.

There is no mortal in my life I consider an enemy.

Step one. Is there anyone I can justifiably consider to be my enemy?

I believe you when you say you’re legitimately wondering and I applaud your open mind. I invite you to consider those who are ostracized or disowned by their families and community when they choose to join a faith other than the faith of their family and community, e.g. Muslims who become Christians, Christians who become Muslims. Also, many who have served LDS missions have witnessed a convert whose family disowned them after their baptism. I’ve had the opportunity to counsel with both those preparing to come out to their family and friends as well as those preparing to tell their family and friends of their decision to be baptized. And while each individual circumstance is unique, there is some commonality in the level and nature of anxiety and concerns. My experience has been that family and friends usually choose love and inclusion, sometimes immediately, but most often over time. My observation in seeing that unfold is that love begets love. In those instances when there has been extended scorn and exclusion, my observation is that unrequited love is healthy for the giver. Godspeed my friend.

For those accountable in mortality, this life may indeed be spiritual repechage. The winners have already been crowned.

God is love. I don’t always get what I want. And I have plenty of experience getting things I didn’t ask for and don’t believe I’m ready for. Nevertheless, when I’ve been humble enough to ask for Divine love, wasn’t too angry and too proud to receive it, and tried to lift, comfort and point to Him those around me who were similarly struggling, suffering and confused, I’ve felt that love and have been able to ask Him to abide with, and enlighten me, as I work through my troubled spirit and circumstances.

Hi Calm. Thank you for the comments and sorry for the tardy response. Each petition made by a son or daughter of God to Him has its own unique context because each of us is unique, both in experience and understanding. And because each of us changes over time, both in experience and understanding, our individual petitions to God each has a unique context as well. That being the case, there is not a single formula for successful Divine communion, nor does successful communion have a single outcome. My experience has been that petitions that lead to a Divine response consist of a combination of desire, sincerity, humility, faith and resolve, not always in equal measure, with the proportions driven by circumstances/context and depth of spiritual understanding. And depending on those same elements, the response to such communion may be as simple/straightforward as bathing in Divine love and comfort with a grateful heart or as complex as changing the entire direction of your life.

Or that the promise incorporates the concept that we are accountable for following the light and knowledge we receive from God. So a loving God knowing that a child’s seeking is motivated only by curiosity or rote and will not result in change, withholds light and knowledge so as not to condemn His child.

I understand where you’re coming from but this is a bit too sardonic for me. I prefer to think that everyone is trying to figure things out in good faith and that those who take the approach you describe do so more out of frustration than calculation.

Always depends on the purported receiver. Generalization would be speculation on my part. I do feel confident in my experiences both with respect to answers to my own questions and inquiries re directions from leaders. The latter hasn’t always resulted in affirmation. I lived in CA serving in a leadership calling when leaders encouraged members to support certain legislation. I prayed about it and felt confirmation that I could follow my conscience and thus I did not follow the direction of leadership.

There’s a difference between receiving an answer of “not yet, my child” and the perception, or reality, of receiving no answer at all. In the same spirit that Elder Bednar asked a couple asking for a blessing if they had faith not to be healed, we can ask ourselves if we have faith to wait for an answer until He is ready to provide it to us. My experience is that all faithful disciples have experienced waiting on the Lord