Stargazer

Wow! That hits well and truly. ETA: and thanks for bringing Suno AI to my attention!

We are all related, some more distant than others. For example, I am supposedly a 14th cousin to King Charles III. I'm also a cousin in one degree or another to every President of the Church except Dallin H. Oaks! And I'm a double cousin to Joseph Fielding Smith. When I moved to England I was surprised to discover that my new bishop was an 11th cousin. Genealogy is so rad!

Just so you know, the Social Hall isn't really intended for the kind of interaction you are asking for. It's social. One introduces oneself, or post things that don't necessarily involve serious discussion. You may have noticed that you're not allowed to post in In the News or General Discussions immediately upon signup, which is why you've posted this here. But once you've made 25 comments in other topics on the board, you become eligible to start new topics on those fora. That being said, I skimmed both, and found them interesting. But you might be better off checking out and commenting on some of the topics that are already posted, and once you've read the "magic" 25, you could post the essays in General Discussions in their entirety, so they can be quoted and discussed properly. Posting them as links may actually discourage some folks here from commenting. We have some users here who post even longer pieces, so length shouldn't be an issue. I can see why you would want to post them on MDDB, though, since write.as doesn't give readers the opportunity to comment on what's published. I am curious why your essays contain a disclaimer about Brigham Young University, though.

Very good! One interesting thing is that as far as I am aware, a servicemember is permitted to have pretty much any religion he or she wants engraved on their dog tags. So, even if Pastafarianism isn't in the list of religions for which chaplains are provided, you can still have it on your dog tags.

I'm unsure from the way you phrased that, whether you realize you're no longer "Limited"?

And you're entitled to be wrong, too!

Thank you. I, too, sometimes dislike posts by people I like.

As this was his first video I saw, I commented on this, saying: "By the way, when I first saw the video's thumbnail (a missionary baptizing a rotting corpse) I thought it might be an anti-Mormon video. But then I watched it, and wow, no it wasn't! And both the thumbnail and video title will definitely attract more eyeballs." His response: "that is the point, You need to know how to make click bait thumnails. Ive been doing this for two years and its only in the last few months that ive gained traction. For a lot of reasons." I have found that the competition for eyeballs leads to even highly popular channels resorting to click-baity thumbnails and titles.

Are you familiar with Quora.com? If you remember LeSellers, according to his profile, he last visited the board in April 2012, and I seem to recall that he posted an official "Goodbye" around that time (I can't find it anywhere). I was disappointed we wouldn't see him around any longer. But he is still here on earth! I recently found him online answering questions on Quora.com using the screen name Le Sellers. I tried to get him to confess that MDDB.LeSellers and Quora.Le Sellers are the same person, but he adroitly avoided admitting it! You can find his Quora profile HERE if you're interested. @Robert F. Smith hasn't visited MDDB since February, but he's active on Quora as well. As am I.

Ah, I see. I reject this, too. But Hawking was using the Big Bang and the creation of the universe as a hammer to beat the idea of a Creator, who had no time to exist in. I don't believe I used Genesis to advocate for the Big Bang. In order to create the universe, the Creator had to do so from outside it. Which is why He can see everything in it, from its inception to its end. Because He is outside it. The Genesis 1 account does refer only to this earth and this solar system. When God said "Let there be light" that corresponds to the ignition of the sun's nuclear furnace. But the Genesis 1 event has occurred in many other places in the universe at various times. God told Moses: "And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten. And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many." Moses 1:33,34 Besides our world, he has created many others, and will create others more. And in those places he has placed an Adam. "And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine. And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words." Moses 1:37,38

As I believe I pointed out, religious services in the Pentagon are already being arranged and performed. And have been since the Pentagon was built. By both military chaplains and others. If Hegseth wants to sponsor an additional prayer meeting for those who share his particular slice of Protestantism, I don't see what the problem is. Or, rather, I do see the problem. He's Pete Hegseth. That's the problem. He has a "Deus Vult" tattoo. He has "problematic" cultural and religious beliefs. He's not interested in fostering leftist touchie-feelism in the military. In short, he is the antithesis of everything the left and the Democratic party stands for. And both the national and the international media has a deep and abiding hatred of everything he stands for. With a couple of exceptions. I don't see what you're complaining about, I'm afraid. To start with, cabinet secretaries don't "represent" the country, they are appointed to manage and represent important government agencies. Our representatives sit in Congress. I served in the US Army for 8 years. For three years I was stationed at Ft. Lewis, Washington. Protestant services were always available on Sundays at post chapels, and these were conducted by chaplains wearing crosses as their branch insignia. Catholics living on post could attend Catholic Mass conducted by the Catholic chaplains. Jewish soldiers had services on post as well, conducted by Jewish chaplains or civilian rabbis. There was an LDS ward for members living in military housing on post that met right outside one of the post's gates in a leased facility. Here's the schedule of religious services now offered at Joint Base Lewis-McChord: Worship Service Schedule. As you see, there's no favoritism. The facilities are government-owned and paid for. The chaplains conducting the services are officers of the US Army and Air Force, and are paid a salary by the government. Just for fun, here's Joint Base Lewis-McChord's main chapel. Catholics, Protestants, and Buddhists all have religious services here. It's a government building paid for by taxpayers. You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but national defense always involves war and aggression, or the threat of war and aggression. Speak softly but carry a big stick. The best defense is a good offence. "Si vis pacem, para bellum" (If you want peace, prepare for war). That is the focus of national defense. Anyone who thinks self-defense generally does not involve aggression is not thinking very clearly. Even Aikido, a martial art which involves deflecting attacks, is aggressive - the deflection involves using your attacker's momentum against him, by throwing him in the direction he was already going, using his aggression against himself. But even that is aggressive. It has to be. I don't know if you're aware of the history of the Department of Defense, so if in the following I'm telling you something you already know, I apologize. For 158 years, up until 1947, the United States had a Department of War. It was the cabinet department responsible for the operation and maintenance of the United States Army. It also had responsibility for naval affairs from 1794 until the establishment of the Department of the Navy in 1798, and for most non-naval air forces until the creation of the Department of the Air Force on September 18, 1947. It's predecessor (starting from 1776) was called the Board of War. In 1947 it was decided to reorganize the US military under a single overall department. They decided to make it sound more peaceful by calling it the Department of Defense. The Department of War was renamed Department of the Army. But calling the consolidated military executive department the Department of Defense is an outright lie. Every time the Department of Defense has acted to send troops, aircraft, or ships to aggress overseas, it involved making or threatening war (whether labelled officially as such, or not), and committing aggression. Whether one approved of these actions or not, it was making war and committing aggression. Calling the Department of Defense the Department of War is to acknowledge the truth, and deny the lie. We live in a dangerous and violent world. Calling it the Department of War acknowledges that fact. Maybe Congress should give the Executive branch more respect? As I recall, Congress has impeached President Trump twice, acquitting him both times. When he gives his required State of the Union message each year, certain members of Congress shout continuous imprecations at him (a distinct lack of decorum), and famously, one Speaker of the House sat behind him at the podium ostentatiously tearing up her copy of his speech for all to see. Congress itself gets little respect from the American people. Their approval rating has sunk to a new low of 10%. You appear not to understand what executive orders are. Allow me to explain. As you know, the President can't create laws by himself, although he may and does propose laws which Congress can then consider for adoption, if they want. Executive orders are nothing more than the creation of regulations that execute or administer existing law. All federal regulations are executive orders, but the vast majority are issued by the federal executive departments responsible for their various subject matters. Most of the time, the text of laws passed by Congress are not used to administer those laws. They are administered, or executed, by executive departments responsible for the subject matter of the various laws. As the head of the executive branch, the President is entitled to issue regulations himself, though he almost always lets his department heads do that. For example, if you examine the Internal Revenue Code you will find that the various provisions in that body of law include such verbiage as "See the regulations pertaining to this...". And then to see how the IRS administers or executes that provision, you have to go to the corresponding section of the Code of Federal Regulations. The regulations in the CFR are drawn up to administer the laws passed by Congress, and are supposed to conform to the laws' provisions. When these regulations are published in the Federal Register, Congress has a certain length of time (30 days, I think) before they become effective, allowing Congress to disapprove of the regulation, and make the department revise it. Presidential executive orders are similar, in that they administer or execute laws. The President's recent order, Executive Order 14201, titled "Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports," implements or executes provisions of Title IX of the US Code, which states "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." That executive order is a reflection of the idea that allowing transwomen to compete in women's sports effectively denies to women and girls the benefit of that part of education that involves sports. In short, the EO doesn't make a law, it executes or administers an existing law. You can read the entire executive order here: "Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports". You will see that it doesn't create a law, but implements the existing law. That's why executive orders cannot be eliminated. Here's an extract from the Wikipedia article about Executive orders. "In the United States, an executive order is a directive by the president of the United States that manages operations of the federal government. Executive orders are only binding on the federal government's executive branch. The legal or constitutional basis for executive orders has multiple sources. Article Two of the United States Constitution gives presidents broad executive and enforcement authority to use their discretion to determine how to enforce the law or to otherwise manage the resources and staff of the federal government's executive branch. The delegation of discretionary power to make such orders is required to be supported by either an expressed or implied congressional law, or the constitution itself. The vast majority of executive orders are proposed by federal agencies before being issued by the president. Like both legislative statutes and the regulations promulgated by government agencies, executive orders in the United States are subject to judicial review and may be overturned if the orders lack support by statute or the Constitution. Presidential executive orders, once issued, remain in force until they are canceled, revoked, adjudicated unlawful, or expire on their terms."

Okay, here's a new one: Covenant Fire. This video is his newest (as of today), and because of the thumbnail (a missionary baptizing a skeletal corpse!) I first took it as an anti-LDS video and channel. Until I started watching, that is! I think the thumbnail is a clever troll, designed to attract eyeballs.

New update to the table in the OP! It now has 203 channels.

FWIW, here's a recent review of a debate on the Trinity between Dan McClellan and Joshua Sijuwade. The reviewer is Metaphysics Mike, an opponent of the Trinity. So you get some of Mike's thoughts as well. This video is close to 3 hours long, so...

No. If I were Secretary of War, I might want to see that LDS-oriented services were conducted, and leave other denominational services to those who wanted them. And you better believe that if I did that, there'd be complaints about that, too. Hegseth is an evangelical Protestant. If he wants to see to it that his own variety of Christian has occasional worship services, it doesn't bother me. Some have complained that he has seen fit to reserve an actual meeting hall, not a small chapel, for the monthly services. To which I say: if he can fill the space, what's the big deal? They should find something worthwhile to complain about. If he were interfering with other denominational services, that would bother me. Has anyone said that other denominations aren't holding worship services in the Pentagon? In fact, there a number of military chaplains actually assigned to the Pentagon. There is a special memorial chapel, the Pentagon Memorial Chapel, which is located at the crash site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Throughout the week, services for various faiths are held at the chapel. It's open 24 hours a day for prayer and meditation. Besides those, there are religious services for many different faiths held in other places in the Pentagon. You can see the schedule of services held HERE. LDS meet in the memorial chapel on Tuesdays 0730-0830. Muslims meet there on Fridays, 1400-1500. Possibly ironically, since the memorial chapel was created to memorialize the victims of the attack committed by their coreligionists. Do we have information that black evangelical chaplains were excluded from those evangelical services encouraged by Hegseth? I don't quite see the logic. Yes, the government is supposed to represent all its people. But there is no national religion. Thus it's difficult to have a generic all-faith worship service. And what about the atheists? They of all people don't want to worship with all the rest. You have to keep in mind that Pete Hegseth is a divisive figure in the public eye, because his policies rub some people quite raw. What this means, is that if he did something truly great, certain people would find it to be troubling, no matter what it was. And heaven forbid someone actually believe in their own religion, and act accordingly.

I can at least partly agree with Dan that there is zero empirical data for those things. What is "empirical evidence"? It is evidence obtained through sense experience or experimental procedure. Now, I have sense experience of both Jesus's resurrection and the divinity of the Book of Mormon. Meaning, the Spirit of God has testified to me that they are both true. So I do have personal empirical data for them. But I cannot demonstrate either of them via an experiment that can demonstrate to anyone else. They have to experiment upon the word for themselves. I don't agree that there is zero empirical data for the historicity of the Book of Mormon. There is some empirical data for the Lehites' journey down the Arabian peninsula: things Joseph Smith could not have known about, but are found in 1st Nephi. That one valley that Lehi named "Laman" after his son is described as a desert dweller might describe it, and there are valleys similar to that in that place; the city of Nahom, whose ruins and name were discovered in reasonably close proximity to where the text suggests it is; and the place Bountiful, whose description and characteristics comes close to a couple of actual locations along the southern coast of the Arabian peninsula, and in the right direction of travel from Nahom. It's not enough to prove anything; but its not zero empirical data.

You're on Reddit? Wow! I drop in there from time to time, too.

That's kind of "stunning and brave," I guess. I spent a few years in camo, and wow guess what we had chaplains who led worship services every Sunday (or Saturday). There were dedicated buildings on post that were specifically intended for religious services. So what is Marcotte all hot and bothered about? Hegseth having worship services in the Pentagon is not some glaring change.

Ah, I see. I missed the turn. Not unusual. Like many other children, I grew up in a non-religious household. My parents taught me to obey them. Since when does a responsible parent tell their children "Oh, you can stand up to me, be independent, no problem! If I tell you to not jump off that cliff, feel free to disobey and take the leap!" Do you know what happened in my household when I told my non-member father that I was going to serve a mission? Wow, it wasn't "next to anarchy," it was anarchy to the max. My non-member mother didn't say a word, but dad definitely had things to say. In my family, I was the quiet obedient one, who always did what was expected. Until this mission thing came up. I was 18, and when dad saw he couldn't force me to change my mind, he kicked me out of the house, and I was on my own. He even got physical about it until mom told him to cut it out. I lived with my grandmother for a few weeks until I got a job and my own little apartment. After I got back from the mission he seemed proud about it, though, and was impressed I could speak German fluently. I disobeyed him a second time after he died, because I went through the temple for him myself, even though he had told me not to do it. I had turned into a true rebel, you see, and my life of crime has continued until this day. I hope you don't take this in bad part, but that sounds incredibly whiny and immature. And I don't get the point. I don't know what you've seen in non-LDS peoples' lives, but I've heard similar things from plenty of children growing up in totally non-religious households. "They won't let me stay out past 10 at night!" "They make me do my homework before I'm allowed to play with my friends!" "They make me take piano lessons! I hate it!" "What? I have to be back from my date by 11 pm? What monster control freaks!" "They grounded me because I stole some cigarettes from my Uncle Tom!" "My parents won't let me play Grand Theft Auto XX all night long! What losers!" "Why do I have to pay for my own gas?" "What do you mean I'm not allowed to hang out with [insert local dubious crowd here]?" "Get a job? What are you, nuts? That's no fun at all!" As for other communities who are not LDS, take my extended family. We were (and still are) flag wavers to the nth degree. Practically every male in the family has volunteered for service with one branch or other of the US military. My two brothers both served. I don't know if there was any family pressure involved, but if there were no direct pressure, there was a huge expectation that we would serve. Was it wrong? Evil? It didn't get down to the point of shame if you didn't enlist, I don't think, but that isn't the way it is in all LDS households either, as far as I'm aware. Your experience notwithstanding. A friend of mine is the 2nd counselor in the stake presidency, and his son is giving signs that he doesn't want to serve a mission. He told me that he is trying not to pressure him, and if he chooses not to, that's his choice. None of my sons served missions, either, and I still love them. A bit disappointed, but the only person I blame is me. Here it is: from time immemorial, parents and communities have had expectations, sometimes serious ones, for what their progeny would do with their lives. You can stop imagining that the LDS are particularly heinous about this. When a parent tries to steer their children away from self-destructive behaviors, SOME KIDS flip out. We did pretty much all that, and I guess we weren't strict enough. And never felt any judgment from our fellow ward members. If they judged us secretly, we never noticed. Where'd you grow up, anyway? I've been a member of the Church for 60 years and I've never lived in a stake where this kind of crap was going on. If you're talking about Utah Valley, well, then OK. Just stay away from them Mormons. Power families? Most of my church life was in western Washington state, and while we had some families many of whose members were extremely faithful and as a result many were in leadership positions, the kind of toxicity you seem to be talking about just wasn't happening. Jeeze, it IS a dumb question. If you have a testimony of the gospel, it's definitely a dumb question. I suppose that if you don't have a testimony, then you should see if you can get one. And if you do, then it's definitely a dumb question. My current ministering companion, who is from South Africa, due to some social pressure went on his mission without having a testimony, but got one while serving. This isn't particularly unusual. If you don't want to serve a mission, then fine, don't. But if you're PRAYING whether you should serve a mission, then what do you think GOD is going to tell you? "No, I'm going to make an exception in your case. You're perfectly healthy and capable, but you, my son, can just stay home." I'm sure that's going to happen. Not that there aren't some who really shouldn't serve a full-time mission. There are those whose capacity or lack thereof make a mission quite iffy. I wasn't going to serve a mission, initially, because as a relatively new convert I didn't think I measured up to the standard demonstrated by the missionary elders who taught me, and by the others whom I met over time, who had the benefit of years of Primary, Seminary, and all that. But when I got my patriarchal blessing I realized that even I needed to be about my Father's business. Although I did try to pray about it to get a confirmation. As it happens I didn't get a confirmation, but after some thought realized that the Lord had already answered me. And so I went, and the rest of my life has been blessed by that decision. Oh, Mormon Stories Podcast! I'm sure they'll be quite neutral and open-minded on the subject. My apologies, but I have a tendency to disregard whatever it is Mr. Dehlin has to present.

I take it you reject the Big Bang, then? You're a Steady State Theorist?

Ryan McBeth had something to say about all this.

Weren't they? Maybe not in Zion, but that's because they were surrounded by fellow LDS all the time, and had no need for it. But I feel that you're misjudging matters a bit. One of my long-term home teaching families took their five younger children out of public school in Washington state when their oldest child started going "the way of the world" due to what she was being force-fed in school. They home-schooled all the rest, and you would have said they weren't learning any kind of independence to be able to stand up to pressure. But all of them who were home-schooled turned out marvelously strong in the gospel. All married in the temple, the boys all serving honorable missions, and every one of them are strong, independent, and productive members of society. Out here in the "mission field" our youth grow up surrounded by Gentiles and get their opportunities to stand up every day. It's home where they find their respite from the pressure. As for me, I grew up in a largely unreligious home, joined the church all by my lonesome, and so my independence was learned at home. And I think my father regretted giving me permission to be baptized at age 14, because he was NOT happy that I decided to serve a mission four years later, instead of going to university like he wanted. Would I have done just as well in a 100% TBM family? I have no idea, but I suspect so. It isn't always the environment or the nurture. It is sometimes the nature of the individual.

I love that song! Does Christianity need some special privileged status in the US? Nah.

I think they're cautious about teaching it because there's no specific revelation (or canonical revelation) regarding it. The whole plural marriage thing is another third rail issue. But how can there not be multiple Heavenly Mothers given that President Nelson is sealed to two women, his wife who predeceased him, and Wendy, his widow? If there aren't multiple HMs, when Pres. Nelson is exalted, which one of his wives gets tossed out on her ear? So, things are complicated enough without delving into speculations over things we have no revelation for. Not that this stops anyone from commenting.

The confusion comes about because the entire region (including both Bohemia and Moravia) has been changing hands between polities for centuries and millennia.