9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

A lot can change in 6 months!

Indeed.  And I certainly don't mean to imply that there was some great gulf between Nelson and Hinckley.  

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

If the summary at the top of the talk is an indicator, their message was the same, at least very compatible and congruent with each other

I agree with this.

I think what stands out to me most about President Hinckley's talk was the "warning" against impeding nations going to (justified and righteous) war.  At that time there were protests at BYU and I think a student left BYU (rather than waste  both his and BYU's time with an honor code process) after being arrested at a protest in SLC.  My impression at the time was that President Hinckley was referring -- at least in part -- to contemporary anti-war protests.

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

There are a lot of geopolitical realities laid out in Isaiah.

Interesting point.  Isaiah also points out several times that the LORD is over all and loves all nations.  A much different tone than can be found in Joshua or Judges.

As I reflect on the many General Conference talks I listened to as a member, there are a handful that remain fresh in my mind, even today.  One of these talks was given by President Nelson in October of 2002.  It is entitled "Blessed are the Peacemakers" and was given just as the US was ratcheting up public discourse about invading Iraq.  One reason this talk resonated with me is because I was struggling with which side of the debate I was on.  My impression was that President Nelson gave this talk in response to the pro-war sentiment that had been growing since 9/11.

  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2002/10/blessed-are-the-peacemakers?lang=eng

Quote

Because of the long history of hostility upon the earth, many feel that peace is beyond hope. I disagree. Peace is possible. We can learn to love our fellow human beings throughout the world. Whether they be Jewish, Islamic, or fellow Christians, whether Hindu, Buddhist, or other, we can live together with mutual admiration and respect, without forsaking our religious convictions. Things we have in common are greater than are our differences. Peace is a prime priority that pleads for our pursuit. Old Testament prophets held out hope and so should we. The Psalmist said, “God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.”28 “He maketh wars to cease unto the end of the earth.”29

Father Abraham was uniquely called a “Friend of God.”30 Peace was one of Abraham’s highest priorities. He sought to be a “prince of peace.”31 His influence could loom large in our present pursuit of peace. His sons, Ishmael and Isaac, though born of different mothers, overcame their differences when engaged in a common cause. After their father died, they worked together to bury the mortal remains of their exalted father.32 Their descendants could well follow that pattern.

Abraham’s posterity has a divinely decreed potential. The Lord declared that Ishmael would become a great nation33 and that the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob would bless all the nations of the earth.34

So descendants of Abraham—entrusted with great promises of infinite influence—are in a pivotal position to emerge as peacemakers. Chosen by the Almighty, they can direct their powerful potential toward peace.

Resolution of present political problems will require much patience and negotiation. The process would be enhanced greatly if pursued prayerfully.

And:

Quote

Now, as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, what does the Lord expect of us? As a Church, we must “renounce war and proclaim peace.”37 As individuals, we should “follow after the things which make for peace.”38 We should be personal peacemakers. We should live peacefully—as couples, families, and neighbors. We should live by the Golden Rule. We have writings of the descendants of Judah as now merged with writings of the descendants of Ephraim.39 We should employ them and expand our circle of love to embrace the whole human family. We should bring divine love and revealed doctrines of restored religion to our neighbors and friends. We should serve them according to our abilities and opportunities. We should keep our principles on a high level and stand for the right. We should continue to gather scattered Israel from the four corners of the earth and offer the ordinances and covenants that seal families together forever. These blessings we are to bring to people of all nations.

By so living, our Master will bless us. He provided this promise: “Fear thou not; for I am with thee: be not dismayed; for I am thy God: I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness.”40

Ours is His supernal cause. Ours is the cause of eternal glory for all humankind. And as peacemakers, we shall be called the children of God. I so testify in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

The tone of President Nelson's talk was a bit different from the talk given by President Hinckley in 2003: "War and Peace".  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2003/04/war-and-peace?lang=eng

At the time it seemed to me that President Nelson and President Hinckley were presenting slightly different views.  And IIRC, the Church released a statement affirming that both men were actually in full agreement.  I can't seem to find this statement but I think it is fair to say that some were left with the impression that President Hinckley was a bit more hawkish than President Nelson.  This discussion played out in Elder's quorum as well.  Pro-war folks quoted President Hinckley and anti-war folks offered up President Nelson.  

President Hinckley was trusting of our political leadership and stated:

Quote

But as citizens we are all under the direction of our respective national leaders. They have access to greater political and military intelligence than do the people generally.

And:

Quote

It may even be that He will hold us responsible if we try to impede or hedge up the way of those who are involved in a contest with forces of evil and repression.

At the time I ultimately ended up on the pro-war side and was behind the Iraq invasion and occupation.  I deeply regret this now.  But I don't want to sound pollyanish. Sometimes defensive war is necessary.  I understand and accept this.  In any case, this raises a couple of questions for me:

1. Does anyone else remember President Nelson's talk?  If so, how did it impact you at the time?

2. Can a nation implement a Christian foreign policy in reality?  Can nations realistically "turn the other cheek?"  Or is it a simple fact that nation states will always be in some type of conflict and response to this conflict is always required.

Reflecting on the past 20 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, I see how wise and truly prophetic President Nelson's talk was.  

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Who actually dictated the BOM to Joseph?

Was the BOM dictated to Joseph? My understanding is that he read characters off of the plates. Or perhaps he read an english representation of the plate characters.

Are there any claims that the BoM was dictated to JS?  The historical record seems to indicate that JS dictate the BoM based on the revelation he received via the seer stone.

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

Looks like he waived his right to a speedy trial, so likely won’t be happening in November.

I hope this piece of garbage spends the rest of his life in prison.

Unvaccinated adults 50+ are 17x more likely to die than vaxxed counterparts

https://www.foxla.com/news/unvaccinated-adults-50-are-17x-more-likely-to-die-than-vaxxed-counterparts

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Thanks for the compliment, but I am not a fan of yours either.

But in fact, I am a fan or yours.  I just miss your previous lucid posting style.

On 8/22/2021 at 12:38 PM, The Nehor said:

hospital resources the unvaccinated person needs.

They should be vaccinated then, no?  If an unvaccinated person gets severely ill, that's 100% on them.  

PSA:  If you are worried about others not being vaccinated, then get vaccinated yourself.  If you do:

A) You won't get Covid (yay vaccines!!!)

or

B) Will get Covid but be sick for a few days (yay vaccines!!)

Just now, The Nehor said:

This is a weird post. I have seen people use voice to text software badly and that doesn’t look like it.

Mark can correct me if I'm wrong.  But I recall him saying that he's been using this software for a while.  And if you compare his old posts to his new posts, the difference is pretty clear.  Today's posts are like bullet points with no cohesive language between thoughts.  Whereas before, Mark's writing was pretty lucid and eloquent.

I've never understood the compulsion to create a narrative around how the BoM was created.

The Book stands or falls on its own claims.  And I think there is more than enough information in the Book itself to conclude it is a product of the 19th century.  

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I like and endorse the Jordan Peterson quote in your siggy.

We have to be up to giving shelter with all flags flying in strength.

Time to come out of the trenches and go over the top.   Stand up or be run over.   Lead with love and stand for what's right.

Please stop using voice-to-text software and use your keyboard.

Your posts are almost unbearable to read these days and it is very difficult to follow your train of thought.

3 minutes ago, Robert J Anderson said:

Did you have an adverse reaction?

Nope.  Nothing out of the usual.  A couple of days of feeling sore/ill.  Then back to normal.  I did get covid after having received the vaccine but it was only a couple of days of being sick.  So it seems that for me, the vaccine didn't prevent infection but it made my illness pretty mild.  And given my risk factors, I think I made out pretty well.  

I support and promote the vaccine.  But I oppose efforts to force people to take an experimental medicine.  As I mentioned above, this is quite different from the polio or other vaccines that we've been taking for decades.  It is no unreasonable to think there are a lot of unknowns re: the vaccine.  And so I blame no one for being skeptical and taking a wait-and-see approach.  Do I think they are making a mistake?  Yep.  Especially if they are at high risk -- which most Americans are because we are a bunch of land whales. 

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The idea that there is no legal recourse is WRONG! There is a way to get financial compensation for complications from vaccines and it is easier than suing a pharmaceutical company

I read the documents I signed before receiving the vaccine.  I have no legal recourse against the manufacturers.  And frankly, I don't trust the government to compensate people fairly.  call me crazy

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, but this falls under the “No duh” category 

Not really.  This is a new drug and type of treatment.  Past experience shows that new treatments commonly reveal side effects years after their initial release.  But for the vaccine, none of us have any legal recourse if we do develop any problems 10 or 20 years from now.  To say that fear of long-term impact on a brand new drug/treatment as "no duh", is silly.  This isn't like the polio vaccine which has been around for 70 decades and where we have absolute confidence in its safety.  

I took the vaccine but I won't look down on anyone who chooses not to do so.

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

the same people who used to tout “personal responsibility” suddenly abandon that doctrine

Part of personal responsibility is accepting the consequences of choice.  It is sad to see so many people needlessly become incredibly ill with Covid.  But that's their choice and I support their freedom to make unwise choices.  And, if i recall my Mormon Doctrine correctly, coming to earth was all about the freedom to make choices -- good or bad.  And that it was a plan to compel others to make good choices that was rejected.

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Because what others do can literally kill them.

Maybe.  But so can a drunk driver or literally any number of dumb things other people choose to do.

But they have the means to minimize their risk via vaccination and self-isolation/distancing.  If someone is high risk, they should protect themselves because they can't control what other people do or don't do.  It is about being pragmatic.

28 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

There are people I care about who could literally die

All of us have those people.

They should A) get vaccinated and/or B) self-isolate and social distance.

Why are we removing responsibility from people to protect their own health?

Looks like Obama's maskless birthday party, with its "sophisticated, vaccinated crowd", was a super-spreader event.  Well done, Barack.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9912597/Marthas-Vineyard-Hospital-bears-brunt-Covid-spike-two-weeks-Obama-birthday-party.html

50 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Now why don’t you take down Medicare for all by pointing out that sometimes there are wait lists in Canada?

I'm in favor of single-payer soy-boy.

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No one is going to cancel math entirely to teach CRT in Elementary school.

LOL... learn to Google!

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/002205741619600104

"Rethinking Teaching and Learning Mathematics for Social Justice from a Critical Race Perspective"

WTF does race to do with 2 + 2 = 4 ?  Should we deconstruct the white supremacy inherent in the western conception of "the order of operations?'

LOL... you are such a partisan joke.  You embody the typical "progressive."  You read only what confirms your existing (and errant) views.  It's like you have no awareness of what is actually happening in the real world.

45 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

CRT is not a policy of total racism.

You really don't know the basics of CRT do you?

33 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This is not the “gotcha” you seem to imagine it is.

I don't know anything about gotchas.  But I do know that a parent of any color who opposes this nonsense is right on the money.

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Why in the world would I feel obligated to support that? That is terrible.

You just said it was only republican conservatives who are causing race issues?  I'm confused.  Is this Black principal a conservative republican?  

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is done at times with segregation by sex because it allows kids to ask questions they might not ask in mixed settings. I don’t see an inherent issue against doing a small groups setting by gender and/or racial/ethnic background to gather concerns that then could be used by the teacher in classroom discussions without identifying who brought it up in the first place. Having multiple groups rather than just two would also be wise to avoid kids assuming who questions came from though some sharing would likely happen. 

These were full classrooms.  For the whole year.  Not just a special class.

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

And which side caused the problem by redefining the word and never explaining what they mean? Yeah, I am gonna blame them for all the confusion.

Yeah.  Only one side.  Get out of your bubble dude.  Or try and defend this:

https://www.macon.com/news/state/georgia/article253467879.html

Quote

 

A Georgia parent has filed a federal civil rights complaint against her daughter’s grade school accusing its principal of segregating students based on their race, multiple outlets report.

Kila Posey, 43, said she was in “disbelief” after learning administrators at Mary Lin Elementary School in Atlanta were relegating the school’s Black students into separate classes apart from their white peers, according to WSB-TV. The practice was allegedly put in place by the school’s principal, Sharyn Briscoe — who’s also Black.

Posey couldn’t believe “that I was having this conversation in 2020 with a person that looks just like me — a Black woman,” she told the news station. “It’s segregating classrooms. You cannot segregate classrooms. You can’t do it.”