Stargazer

The SLC Visitors Center now includes a replica temple interior that visitors can tour! This is pretty cool!

You write well enough that you really ought to publish some of it. Or do you, under a pen name? I searched on Amazon to see if Ken K. Gourdin was the author of anything, but there wasn't. There are self-publishing options available out there. I have used Kindle Direct Publishing, not so much because it's the best, as I started with it as CreateSpace before it was bought and rebranded by Amazon.

Finally got around to watching "Greyhound" the other day. If you're unfamiliar, it is a "2020 American war film directed by Aaron Schneider and starring Tom Hanks, who also wrote the screenplay.[5] The film is based on the 1955 novel The Good Shepherd by C. S. Forester, and follows a US Navy commander on his first assignment commanding a multi-national escort destroyer group of four, defending an Allied convoy from U-boats during the Battle of the Atlantic." Text from Wikipedia. I really enjoyed the film. It was supposed to have had a theatrical release in 2020, but due to Covid and all the disruptions the theatrical release was cancelled and it was released digitally. It was Oscar-nominated for "Best Sound."

There were a lot of Russian and Ukrainian young men who left their countries as the war started, in order to avoid being called into military service. These two might be such.

In our Sunday school the discussion is the Come Follow Me theme for the week. That seems to be the usual practice everywhere, or am I assuming too much?

I was once called to be a counselor in a Sunday school presidency (this was over 25 years ago), and was really pumped to be able to serve therein, but then found that the only reason I was in there was to be a roving substitute teacher, as needed. I had thought that we were supposed to monitor how teachers were doing, make suggestions, organize teacher training, and when necessary advise the bishopric about Sunday school matters. I suppose the president did some of that, but I never heard about it, nor did we ever have a presidency meeting. I was very disappointed. But me being me, I was definitely on board being a substitute teacher.

In our bishopric WhatsApp group our bishop today commented that he wished this had come out a couple of months back when we were considering whom to call as SS president. That's because our candidate pool was rather constrained, being that our ward is one of the smaller ones. I'm not surprised. I also don't see it as shocking as some might paint it. In my opinion, there was never any real reason for women not to serve in Sunday School presidencies. A more radical change would be women preparing and passing the Sacrament. There's no scriptural or doctrinal reason why women cannot do either of these. In fact, many many years ago, as I understand it anyway, women regularly prepared the Sacrament. And even now, females and unordained males pass the sacrament in the pews. I think that particular change might get a bit more pushback, however.

I've updated the original table as of 17 March 2026 so it should be fairly accurate at that point. Adding this post to move the thread to the top.

Something I ran into that I wanted to share:

Why are you trying so hard to minimize things? "Unlawful presence" is overstaying a visa. You had permission to cross the border, but your permission has expired. You need to go home. And if you overstay your visa, parking ticket or not, you need to be deported. According to Pew, between 4 and 5.5 million foreigners entered the United States with a legal visa, accounting for between 33 and 48% of the total unauthorized migrant population. They need to go home, or be sent back home. There are over 14 million illegals in the US (or was, before Trump started paying for them to self-deport), and you think the ones who "merely" overstayed their visa should be ignored? Or be given a free pass?

Scouting America holds one of the comparatively rare congressional charters under Title 36 of the United States Code. This was given in 1916, I believe. The honorary chair of the Scouts has always been the sitting US President, meaning Donald Trump currently. Scout troops are typically sponsored through public organizations, such as churches, government schools, private clubs, and the like. When I was in the Army in Europe there were American scout troops sponsored by DoD organizations, with scouts whose parents were military and other DoD personnel. "The purposes of the corporation are to promote, through organization, and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916." 36 U.S.C. § 30902

Of course those aid organizations are completely unbiased.

In most cases it is not actually a crime? When does it become a crime? No, you seem to have listened to something Don Lemon said in one of his attempts at "journalism." Crossing the U.S. border without authorization is a federal crime, specifically a misdemeanor for first-time offenders under 8 U.S.C. § 1325, punishable by fines and up to six months in jail. Subsequent unlawful entries or re-entry after deportation can be charged as a felony (8 U.S.C. § 1326), with penalties of up to 2 years in prison or more depending on prior criminal history. Sounds like a crime to me. And ICE's first priority is illegals who have committed additional crimes, but if they happen to find the other sorts in the process, then it is still not "catch and release."

I live there. The propaganda is being told by the Labour government and the BBC. I'm sure you've heard how the BBC likes to manipulate video to tell falsehoods? But I'm sure you still believe their fairy tales. Cheap or expensive? Doesn't matter. I live in England, and I know that cheap hotels are NOT cheap. Though they have been talking about putting these people up on military bases, too. Since they are running out of room. More come because the "asylum seekers" know the UK will treat them like honored guests. You know, when I first applied to immigrate to the UK, they required that I prove I could support myself, and my visa was very specific that I was not permitted to receive public funds or benefits. But these people come over illegally and the government houses and feeds them. They know this. So they come. They aren't seeking asylum, even if they say they are. Asylum seekers stop in the first safe country, they don't keep going into country after country, finally undertaking the dangerous crossing of the English Channel. Are you saying that France is too dangerous for them? That they need asylum from France? Don't be ridiculous. There were 89,509 asylum applications (relating to 110,051 people) in the UK in the year to September 2025, a 13% increase from the previous 12 months. The top five countries of origin of people seeking asylum were Pakistan, Eritrea, Iran, Afghanistan and Bangladesh. <-- are you going to tell me that Bangladeshis have to travel all the way to England to get asylum? That's what? 4,000 miles? They can't stop anywhere in between? Are you delusional? Ah yes, Lucy Connolly. She tweeted something in haste because of the Southport mass stabbing in which four little girls were murdered and several others badly wounded. A tweet she deleted three hours later and apologized for. So they sentenced her to 42 months in prison. Meanwhile, in 2023 over 12,000 people were arrested for alleged violations of the UK law that makes it illegal to send “grossly offensive” or false/misleading stuff over public comms (tweets, WhatsApp, etc). This covers offensive/obscene/menacing posts + knowingly false messages. Of the 12k arrests in 2023 only 1,119 led to convictions. This suggests that the police are being used to scare citizens from expressing their opinions. Or did 12k people issue direct threats against asylum seekers? You mean the sources you believe without question? No thanks. I see the kinds of things you credit as truthful. And the stands you like to take.

Yes, there is overcrowding. It's because they keep coming because the British government encourages it by not discouraging it. And the current government refuses to do anything constructive about it. The previous government came up with the brilliant idea of sending the illegals to a country willing to accept them, in this case Rwanda. Of course that was widely derided by the left. The current government seems to have no idea what to do. And I can ask chat about this, too: "The Labour government is focusing on tackling illegal immigration by establishing a new Border Security Command to "smash the gangs" behind small boat crossings, utilizing counter-terror style tactics. Key actions include scrapping the Rwanda plan, increasing deportations of failed asylum seekers, and aiming to end the use of hotels for asylum accommodation by 2029." In other words, they claim they'll get around to stop housing illegals in hotels in about three years. But whatever they are saying they will do is most likely not going to be done.

This sounds like some member going "off the reservation" and it needs to be reported to the local church authorities. It is not legitimate.

I am in favor of the deportation of those who are in the country illegally. But I am not employed by the INS, and unless someone were carrying out illegal activities, I am not concerned with their immigration status. I've known immigrants, both illegal and legal. In my old ward (I've been gone from there for 10 years now) there was one family who I believed might be in the country illegally. I never asked them about their immigration status, and they were a fine family. I wanted them to stay in the US. Another man whom I knew in a neighboring town, who lived on property next to some acreage of mine, was definitely an illegal immigrant from Mexico. Nice guy, hard-working, and honest. I eventually sold my acreage to him. His situation was noteworthy in that his wife was Guatemalan who was living in Mexico as an illegal immigrant to Mexico! It was around the time that I moved to the UK that he told me that he was going to visit Mexico in order to do the paperwork with the government so his wife could have legal status in Mexico, so she could join him in the US, so if they got deported from the US, at least they would be deported together to the same country! I don't know how his story has turned out, but I hope he manages to stay under the radar in the US. Bult if you're in the country illegally, you should go home. In the UK they have gone completely potty about illegals. They catch them as they cross the Channel, and the government then puts them up in fancy hotels. Some of these people leave their government-paid lodgings and go out to commit crimes, up to and including rape and murder. But still they stay here. And the Brits who complain about it find themselves being put in jail for "hate speech."

Amazing! Have you been reading your Book of Mormon lately? Because that was exactly what Nehor taught! Not the illustrious board netizen called "The Nehor" here on MDDB, but the character in the Book of Alma. I suggest you read about him, starting here: Alma 1:2. In particular part, here in verse 4 is what Nehor taught: "And he also testified unto the people that all mankind should be saved at the last day, and that they need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and, in the end, all men should have eternal life." If "by grace we are saved, before all we can do," that lets us do absolutely nothing, and we're home free! Because if we're saved before we do anything at all, there's no reason for us to do anything. It's quite clear. In the actual verse, we are saved by grace after all we can do, because all the labor we might do cannot save us -- but all we can do is what qualifies us to receive the grace of Jesus Christ. In other words, we still have to do something, as Peter said on the Day of Pentecost, "repent and be baptized." Remember the Parable of the Vineyard? What did the men get who showed up for work, as directed, but there was virtually nothing left to do at the end? They got the same payment as the ones who were there all day long. They were paid by grace, after all they could do, which was to simply show up. I think I will bring up the Syrian general Naaman in 2 Kings 5. Upon being advised that there was a prophet in Israel who could heal him from his leprosy, with his king's permission he traveled to Israel and was directed to the prophet Elisha. Because Elisha didn't even come out to greet him, which seemed disrespectful, but sent his servant to tell Naaman to bathe seven times in the River Jordan, Naaman was angry, and said "Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? may I not wash in them, and be clean?" Then he went away in a rage. He was then persuaded by his own servants that that he had nothing to lose by at least giving it a try since the task is a simple and easy one. So, performs the labor of seven baths in the Jordan River and finds himself healed. Now, did the River Jordan heal him? Of course not. Millions of people have washed in that river and it hasn't healed any but Naaman. So what healed him? Naaman's obedience to the word of God conveyed to him by the Lord's prophet. The same is true of "all we can do" -- if it is done with faith in Jesus, Christ's grace activates to the person's salvation, if the person remain faithful to the end, which is why the word "after" occurs there. However, I'm giving short shrift to a subset of humanity who get that grace for literally nothing at all (and for whom your modification does actually apply), and that is all those children and other non-accountable people whom are not held to account for their transgressions because they were incapable of making accountable decisions of will before they died. For example, there is a young woman in my ward who suffered an adverse medical event shortly after birth. She does not have the mental or physical ability to even understand what a sin is. She lives in a damaged body and has to be wheeled everywhere she goes. Christ's grace covers her because she cannot do anything.

This seems to be topical. https://youtu.be/YdaMAlNIYS4?si=3DJo-JsIK8ywcJzR

No, you understand incorrectly. My primary intent was to assure you that the likelihood of your son being proxy baptized, etc. within your lifetime without your consent is nil. The rest of it was to explain why. You have said you prefer not to debate this, but you seem to be asking for it here. Sigh. You misunderstand. Christ is interested in your faithfulness and your personal belief in him. The baptismal ritual is meaningless without that. The ritual does not save; only Christ saves. But He requires it as a condition of His grace nevertheless. You remember His conversation with Nicodemus, I know you do. The fact that you have been baptized is witness of your conviction about that. This is wonderful; the only question might be whether the person performing it had actual authority to do so efficaciously. Ask yourself this: if authority does not matter in the matter of baptism, then in Acts 19 why did Paul re-baptize the disciples at Ephesus who said they had been baptized of John's baptism, but had never heard of the Holy Ghost, despite John having always made it clear that those to be baptized would have to await Jesus to baptize them with the Holy Ghost when He came? To me it sounds like Paul felt they had been baptized by someone claiming falsely to have John's authority, and the ordinance had to be repeated. If authority did not matter, Paul should have just taught them properly, conferred the Holy Ghost, and let the original baptism stand. But he didn't. It is not the ordinance that saves. It is the obedience and the faithfulness exhibited by that obedience. When Naaman came to Elisha to be healed of his leprosy, he was offended that there was anything special about the River Jordan in terms of healing. So he initially refused to obey, until convinced to give it a try. He obeyed and was healed. Did the Jordan heal him? No, the Jordan is just running water, and without faith all he would get is wet. He showed his faith by his obedience to the authority of God's prophet. Perhaps Naaman thought that since the rivers in his country were just as good, if not better than the Jordan, if he bathed in one of them seven times that would work fine. He would have been wrong. This story stands as a parable of obedience to the principles of the Gospel, and the authority of God's chosen servants. By the way, there was exclusivity in the Jordan River, just as there is in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If you choose to reject that exclusivity, think of Naaman. The thing about waiting one hundred years is merely a sincere effort by the Church to not step on the feelings of living people who do not desire their dead to be involved in rituals they don't believe in. After a hundred years they wouldn't be available to be offended by this, so their feelings on the matter could not be stepped on. And what is a hundred years in the Spirit World? We don't even know if time flows in the same way it does here. Has he already found out whether we are right and he and you are wrong? It is our understanding that one goes from here to there with exactly the same mind and spirit we have here. He may not even have been contacted by anyone on "our side." Aside from broad outlines, we don't know diddly about the details over there. To put this in your own words, you son's eternal hope is not in some completely unknown stranger's ritual a hundred or a thousand years from now. Your son's eternal hope is in another stranger, even Jesus Christ whom he has never met, and in his acceptance of Jesus Christ as his Savior and Redeemer, and in the acceptance of that stranger Jesus's sacrifice on the cross. As for the stranger standing as proxy for him in the temple ensuring that the baptism Jesus taught Nicodemus about was available to him with the proper authority, what's wrong with that? Did Paul the Apostle make a mistake when he wrote of baptism for the dead in 1 Cor 15:49? Was Peter telling tall tales when he told of Jesus Christ's preaching to the dead in 1 Peter 4:6? Was Jesus misquoted when he is said to have spoken in John 5 that the time had come that the dead would hear the voice of the Son of God (v. 25) and in v. 28 "Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice..." Who among all the denominations take Peter, Paul, and Jesus seriously on that matter? Only us. There is a message in that. For the salvation of all mankind is at stake. What about the billions who never even heard of Christ? Are they all going to hell from no fault of their own? If true, that's some unmerciful God, to create people who have no chance of salvation because of when and where God put them. I apologize, for I wanted to conform to your desire not to debate. But you seemed to want to, regardless. So I obliged, and answered you. I don't know what else I can say. So I shan't say anything further.

I wasn't trying to debate. Just presented the matter as I understand it.

Of course they're examples of the system working. I wasn't arguing that the system is broken. Although if you listen to some qualified persons in the sciences, they are starting think that the system has started to work very poorly for various reasons. Check out Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder on YouTube if you want to investigate that further. She has some trenchant criticisms. If Barnes is right, then his proposals will eventually be shown to be correct. If not, then not. But they can be wrong. I seem to recall that all the local theology experts in Joseph Smith's neighborhood thought he was seriously out to lunch, as did the Pharisees and Sadducees when it came to Jesus and his disciples. Don't get me wrong; I like experts, too, but I recognize their limitations. For a start, if the only tool you have is a hammer, then you see nails everywhere. Yes, I'm aware of that. Joseph Smith was raised in a Protestant tradition that included some ideas from the Apocrypha? Which tradition was that, and did his family Bible even include the Apocrypha? But see your next question... We are talking about other apocryphal texts. I just brought up the Book of Tobit just because I've been reading it and finding the story interesting, especially when correlated with the trick the Sadducees were trying to pull with Jesus. I don't remember if I mentioned it to you or not, but the proposal is that some material that was found in apocryphal writings that were not discovered or not well-known in Joseph Smith's time can be found in the Book of Mormon. I can't comment much about this -- I have no idea what your mission's samizdat actually consisted of. My mission didn't have that kind of thing going on so far as I can recall. But then we might not have been as sophisticated as your generation was. I suspect this book is a cut above the samizdat your mission was passing around. I think the utility of the book is to pique the interest of someone willing to get into the weeds. That seems to be part of its intent. As I indicated, I'd like to see an honest someone with the requisite knowledge and qualifications actually do it. ALL THAT BEING SAID... I don't necessarily "believe" all that Mr. Barnes puts forward. I'm not qualified to judge. But I have found it extremely interesting, and borders on persuasive. Reading this book has been fascinating beyond my expectations -- and fortunately it is not written in the style of a formal tome guaranteed to put one to sleep if suffering from ... drat ... forgot the word for "not being able to get to sleep". Nevermind, it's 1:40 am here and I need to go to bed. Where I will no doubt think of something else to write here...

Please accept my heartfelt condolences for the loss of your son! Some of the following has been said already, but I would like to dive a bit deeper. Policy on proxy temple work for people born within the last 110 years requires a familial relationship to the person, or permission by a close family member. Based on your son's probable birth year of 1978, it will not be until 2088 that a relative of his could request proxy ordinances to be performed on his behalf, with a certain proviso I will mention below. You will be long past caring at that point. For example, I signed on to FamilySearch.org and did a search on the random name William Jones. I picked the first one that came up. I am not related to this person in any way. When I viewed the "Ordinances" tab I saw this (the red annotation was added by me): I cannot have this person's temple work submitted to be done. Nobody in your LDS ward can do so for your son, either, even with your permission! So far as I know. Only if they're related, but it would still require your permission. Note that when your son's data eventually ends up in Family Search (and it will, perhaps in 50 years, who knows), an unrelated person still cannot go against your wishes to have his temple ordinances done. Unless the Millennium has arrived by then, when all bets will be off. Here is one of my 1st cousins once removed. I've obscured identity info. We are actually related, but I cannot "just do it." The site says: "This person was born within the last 110 years. Permission from a close relative is required to perform these ordinances." But in 2027 I could request the ordinances to be done without such permission. It happens that her parents' temple ordinances have all been performed. I can see who may have submitted the name of her father for his work to be done, and the person who did it is a relative of hers - and a 9th cousin of mine, too, by the way. BE AT PEACE (for now): You son is safe from his name being put through the temple at this time, unless you have another child who joins the Church. That sibling would be able to submit his name, or if not a member give permission to another relative to have the temple work done. More distantly related persons could, starting in 2088, submit your son's name for the work to be done, and if male, may even stand as proxy for him. When this happens you will be long gone on to your reward. It could happen sooner than 2088 if your son has no parent or sibling still living who would refuse to give permission. But would still need a relative to initiate it. And as I said in my previous answer to you, if The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is NOT the true church of Jesus Christ as it claims, then whatever happens in one of our temples will matter not one whit. But if it is the true church of Jesus Christ, during the Millennium the names of all persons who have ever lived upon the face of the earth will have their ordinances performed in a temple, with the condition that the ordinances will only be effective for those persons who accepted the ordinances after having been properly instructed in the Spirit World. I hope this helps!

If your theology doctrine is correct and ours is wrong, Jesus won't care a hootin' holler whether your name is on our list or not. It won't matter, one way or another. And your salvation will proceed as you believe it will. However, if our theology doctrine is correct and yours is wrong, and you were not baptized by authority while living into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then after you die you will have a second opportunity to hear the gospel according to this Church, and a second opportunity to accept it or not. If you do accept it, then your proxy baptism, which will surely have already been performed by proxy in a temple, will stand as acceptable to the Lord. And this is because that proxy baptism will have been recorded in heaven as well as on earth.

What do you want to achieve ultimately? Build the actual playlist on a CD, or a USB stick? You could assemble it all in a YouTube playlist, but depending upon your Premium status you'd have to endure periodic adverts.