Stargazer

Thanks. When I woke up this morning the first thing that I thought was that it was a huge mistake posting anything at all about Epoch Times. "What was I thinking?" And yes, I should have known better. But this thread is going to get shut down soon, so I better get in my licks. We'll see who gets the last word before Nemesis comes in guns ablazin'. And let me start with an apology. I'm sorry I posted anything further in this thread. I'm sorry this post in particular is so darned long. If you actually read it, I will be impressed. It started with just a few clarifications about my attitude regarding Wikipedia. And then it grew out of control. I originally planned to go out and fly my drone today to get some video footage for my YouTube channel, and I should have left two hours ago. Instead, here I am, crafting this hefty tome -- that I'm sure will cause you to change your mind about something (/sarcasm). What I have noticed is that when you move to as far to the left as you seem to have, everything (including the entire center) seems to be rightists. You seem to think I am far-right. I am not. I am a libertarian. I used to vote for the candidate who most closely matched my own political ideas. No longer. I vote exclusively and reluctantly Republican because the Democrats have dropped off into some kind of fever-dream woke state that is unrecognizable as to reason or reasonability. I'm 74 years old, and I have voted for a lot of Democrats in my life. Can't do it any more, which makes me sad. Even a good Democrat will end up supporting insane positions these days. Or so it seems to me. And then there's what I call the "derangement syndrome" phenomenon. A former Facebook friend, who claims to be a moderate Republican, posted what amounted to a "good riddance" post on Facebook concerning Charlie Kirk, calling him "hateful and divisive." When I asked him to tell me what Kirk said that was "hateful" he unfriended me, messaging me that "The people you admire are anathema to me. I see the US following the same path that Germany did in the 1930s, and I am very worried about it!" In other words, because I asked him to tell me what made him think Kirk was hateful, he immediately associated me with Nazis, and kicked me out of his friendship circle. This man is active LDS and we served in the same mission. I have other acquaintances who believe Trump is a literal Nazi (don't tell The Nehor about that, he'll get in trouble trying to punch him). I agree with you entirely regarding Wikipedic bias. Note that I did not characterize all of Wiki as dominated by lefties, just the political topics. I find myself correcting people who believe Wiki is completely unreliable because it's gone left-crazy. It hasn't. I'm am an occasional Wiki editor (here's a link to my profile: Cyberherbalist). I love Wikipedia! Not a day goes by that I don't find myself looking something up on there. And you do? The evidence might suggest that you don't either. Sorry, but I can sling insults, too. <- I hereby disavow the claim that you don't have an objective bone in your body. I was just mirroring you to help you see your error. This is how you know someone has lost their objectivity: they conclude that anyone who disagrees with them cannot be objective. In fact that's what that former friend said to me as his reasoning when refusing to engage on a matter: "I didn't believe I could carry on an objective dispassionate conversation with you." This is typical. I'm "far-right" (a code word for Nazi) because I appreciate news sources that don't follow the "party line." I know their point of view. I appreciate their point of view. Just as I appreciate the point of view of The Guardian, Fox News, ABC, CNN, MSTDS, and the rest. I am a blue-check on X. I follow people on X with whom I both agree and disagree with. I want to see what they have to say. Or at least I did. I've cut back on X over the past month or so. And you didn't immediately unsubscribe? Wow, you've broadened your reach! Ever hear of The Intercept? The claim to be centrist, because they sometimes (rarely) criticize Democrats, but they're very left. I don't know how I ended up on their subscriber list, because I had never heard of them before, but there they were, emailing me at least once a week, but sometimes every day. I appreciate their coverage, too. I see their bias and wait for the day that I might agree with them on something important. Hasn't happened yet, but it might. Really? It's biased in what it chooses to cover? Who knew? What an unusual kind of bias!! I'm shocked, I tell you! Shocked! Do you actually pay any attention to what you're typing? They are ALL biased, and they ALL biased in what they choose to cover. If you don't see that, I have a bridge to sell you. Conspiracy stuff? Have you ever seen that montage of the mainstream TV news anchors, all proclaiming in the same words, how much danger "our democracy" was in because of "false news" and "misinformation"? Looks like some kind of conspiracy, and one that is trying to convince people to not look for alternative sources of news -- stick to the mainstream news or you're endangering "our democracy." You think there are no conspiracies? Ever read the Book of Mormon? It mentions conspiracies occasionally. Not just the Gadianton Robbers, either. If you think there are no conspiracies, what about that bridge I have on offer? Yes, confirmation bias. I know all about it. That's why I subscribe to Ground News. Interesting! Thanks for pointing it out to me. LOL, yes, NPR is far left, and they're very biased. The problem with this is simple: even the people behind the Interactive Media Bias Chart are biased. If you rely on them, then you might be misled, depending upon how much and in what direction their bias runs. If someone tells me that a source is biased (as they all are), before I can evaluate that opinion, I have to know what their bias is. A communist will see the center as far-right, for example. And the other problem is the left-right political spectrum itself. It's crude and in my opinion completely misleading. It derives from the French Assembly of the Revolution. Everyone in the Assembly was in favor of the Revolution, its principles, and doing away with the monarchy. But they varied on how radical they wanted to be in carrying out the Revolution. For example, one side wanted to guillotine the king and queen and all the nobles. The other just wanted them to just go away quietly. And of course they treated each other like bitter enemies, and depending upon who happened to be in greatest power at a given moment, they would guillotine their opponents. It wasn't called the Reign of Terror for nothing. And they were all leftists, just different shades of leftist. The far-right and the far-left are slightly different flavors of the same pie. Their main difference is who they want dead. The Communists want to kill or enslave everyone who disagrees with them. The Nazis want to do the same, but add racial components to the list. So when you call me far-right, you are claiming that in my heart of heart I want to see my political opponents and the Jews dead or in a concentration camp. I know you don't really believe that I want this, but do you not see that labelling me in this way is a profound insult? Perhaps your Interactive Media Bias Chart has some validity. When I see TYT down in the far-left corner with a lowish reliability rating, it pretty much matches my own assessment. But do you know that I nevertheless appreciate their viewpoint, just as I appreciate The Epoch Times'? I want to know what Cenk Uygur thinks. I want to know what Ana Kasparian thinks. Sometimes these people, despite my general disagreement with their viewpoint, actually say something that I can agree with, or give me something useful to think about. On the other hand, IMBC shows Charlie Kirk to be far more right and far less reliable than TYT is left and reliable. Which seems to track with my former friend who unfriended me because to him Kirk was anathema. Sure Charlie Kirk was on the right, as labels go. But unreliable? Unreliable as to what, exactly? Did he make a habit of lying about things that could be fact-checked? Or were his opinions anathema to the IMBC people? Or, further, is IMBC relying upon what Kirk actually said, as opposed to what others have claimed about him? Inquiring minds would like to know. You know who Stephen King is, right? He posted something on X about Charlie Kirk, that Kirk advocated stoning gays. Plenty of people retweeted King's claim. When King finally had his nose rubbed in the fact that Kirk had never said any such thing, and King had relied upon a complete lie uttered by someone else with malice aforethought, he recanted rather abjectly. Did IMBC's assessment rely upon what King had relied upon? From whom does IMBC get their information from? Do you know? If you made it this far, congrats. I hope I haven't offended you too deeply, or caused you any pain. I should probably shut up now before I dig my hole any deeper.

Exactly what I expected you to post. Thanks.

In some circles, "disingenuous misinformation tactics" means telling the truth or whatever doesn't support left-wing insanity. When it comes to politics, Wikipedia is just as reliably far-left as the mainstream news in the US and the UK. This is some of what Wikipedia has to say about The Epoch Times: "The Epoch Times opposes the Chinese Communist Party, trumpets far-right politicians and movements in Europe, and has supported President Donald Trump in the U.S." <- Note the "neutral encyclopedic" tone. As if the word "trumpet" weren't as biased as possible. Note that, to the far-left, all three of these peccadilloes are mortal sins, with the last one being the unforgivable sin. If you read the Wikipedia article to its conclusion, you will find that it is an almost unremitting catalog of hate-spewing accusations -- most of which are sourced from reliably left-wing organizations. I have no doubts whatsoever that a great deal of the opposition to The Epoch Times is generated and/or paid for by the Chinese Communist Party. It is all of a piece with the CCPs hyperventilating over Falun Gong, and its desperate attempts to dehumanize that religion's adherents, which of course helps justify the genocidal passion they display towards them. As you noticed from your correspondent's ranting about FG, they've inspired a whole generation to hate certain people with unauthorized religious beliefs. Yes, FG believes some peculiar things, but the CCPs main problem is that FG promotes loyalty, not to the CCP, but to principles hated by the CCP. Naturally, anything that doesn't lead to loving The Party is not to be endured. The abject terror and hissy-fitzing that the left seems to have for The Epoch Times makes it hard not to consider that it might be a sometimes reliable source of news. If a person has an objective bone in their body, then The Epoch Times is just another news organization with a bias and point of view that needs to be recognized in order to judge how to interpret what they report, and how to understand it. To some people, The Epoch Times is anathema, and they wouldn't be caught dead reading it. Or they read it only through red-tinted glasses. As for me, I am a subscriber to Ground News, which in one digest affords me the ability to find as many points of view as possible.

LOL! Yes, and it rather reminds me of 1 Peter 1:20 -> "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."

Doesn't it? You interpret it that way, but... I know that Lewis would have limited himself, as you do. But both of you are limited by the platonic philosophy that you inherited from the post-apostolic fathers. Long after apostolic authority and inspiration had gone. Why else was the Council of Nicaea so necessary? Because much had been lost, some of what remained was now believed to be heresy, and some of it was definitely heresy. Now I ask you, why can't humans become divine in the same way as God is divine? And isn't "a kind of glorified existence that is beyond our current understanding" be something very close to, if not the same as God? You speak as if God cannot make us into whatever He wants to make us into. Why does He call us His children, if we are not or cannot be of the same nature as He? The LDS Doctrine and Covenants contains plenty of information on this, but I don't need D&C to demonstrate it. It's all over the New Testament. John starts out with "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name". [John 1:12] Paul continues with: "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." [Romans 8:16-17] "Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ." [Galatians 4:7] Matthew tells that the Lord commanded us: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." [Matthew 5:48] Now, before you say that can't be done, consider what Nephi told his father when the latter asked him to go do a hard thing the Lord had commanded him: "And it came to pass that I, Nephi, said unto my father: I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them." [1 Nephi 3:7] Now I know that you don't consider the Book of Mormon to be the word of God like the Bible is, but is this sentiment here, just for the sake of argument, nevertheless true? Consider the opposite: does God commonly give commandments He knows are impossible to carry out? To John the Revelator was given this word: "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." [Revelation 3:21] The resurrected Christ told John that to those who overcome will be granted to sit with Christ in His throne. Or, in other words, according to Paul, "heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ." Can you deny that sitting with the Father and the Son in their thrones is "a kind of glorified existence that is beyond our current understanding"? Doesn't that look very much like the exaltation that the Latter-day Saints speak of? I've mentioned this to you before, but St. Athanasius is credited with the following, in connection with the condescension of the Son in coming to Earth: "For He was made man that we might be made God." You can argue until you're blue in the face that Athanasius didn't really mean it, that like C. S. Lewis, he was using "mythological language." But how would you know the mind of a man millennia dead and gone? Of course, how would I, for that matter, but his writing supports what I'm saying rather more than yours. But as a nod to your sensibilities in this matter, when Athanasius wrote, capitalization in Latin was not a thing, and it had no indefinite article. So Athanasius' saying might also be rendered "For He was made man that we might be made a god." Thus not putting us equal to God. Again, cannot the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ not raise us to the level of sitting with the Father and the Son in their thrones? It certainly seems that we're intended to become such, else why would John and Paul write what they wrote?

Yes, and I've noticed that scripture does tend to mean two or three things at one time. The entire universe is the workmanship of His hands, so...

It occurred once in my ward that our bishop who worked for Boeing in Seattle, he got promoted away from the area. Don't know if that was because he wanted an early release or not. I suspect not, since he seemed to enjoy the calling.

I take this to refer to the Pre-existence, not mortal life. I say this because their spirits were the workmanship of His hands. Their mortal bodies were the workmanship of their mortal parents. Even though one might argue that the original mortal workmanship (Adam and Eve) was the Lord, the immediate workmanship was not. The knowledge conferred upon them is what they were taught as pre-existent spirits. It is my feeling that we are not born tabula rasa, but that we do bring with us knowledge whose origin we do not know, or even recognize as brought knowledge. For one thing, we bring with us the Light of Christ, which enables us to recognize truth, however disguised by man's distortions. In the Garden of Eden is where God gave man his agency -- if not, how could Eve have chosen to partake of the forbidden fruit, with Adam to follow her example? Of course. Otherwise, how would it be possible for them to rebel?

It's one of those "unwritten rules." 5 years for bishop, 10 years for stake president. Well, it might be written in some unpublicized manual, but not one that I am aware of. Long time ago, a new bishop or stake president could expect to stay in that calling for a really long time, potentially for the rest of their life. When Spencer W. Kimball's father, Andrew Kimball, was called as president of the St. Joseph Stake based in Thatcher, Arizona, in 1898, he spent the rest of his life in Arizona, serving as stake president for 26 years. He didn't live there when he was called, but moved there in order to fulfill the calling.

Volumes? Here's your volume: I didn't get anything else out of it because I didn't read it. Calling someone's idea idiotic right out of the starting gate does not tend to engender feelings of goodwill or help build a desire to open one's heart to the accuser's thoughts on the matter. You'll pardon me if I have decided not to participate in this particular conversation any further. Not because of you, precisely, but because after all the senseless violence going on I am finding it hard to approach it with sufficient dispassion. For example, this post grew to several hundred words before I decided I had had enough of the whole thing.

I've submitted your wife to the London Temple prayer roll. Not knowing her name, I put it in as Navidad's Wife. I'm sure the Lord knows who she is.

Believe it or not, it has improved over the past year. I used to get so frustrated with it that I would use Bing or Google to find what I wanted. During this conference I've been able to find what I needed during the sessions using the church search, however. A year or so ago I submitted a "bug report" about this to the tech folks. Got a response saying to be patient; they were working on it.

900,000 converts in the past 36 months? Wow! Wish some of them were in my ward. I'd love to know the geographical distribution.

I agree, but Elder Cziesla's stirred me greatly, too. On the other hand, I don't know if the Lord wants two Germans in the Q12 at the same time. Both of them were only called as General Authority Seventies in April, so may not be seen as having sufficient experience. Fortunately, the Lord is in charge, so my opinion is irrelevant!

In Michael Ash's book Rethinking Revelation and the Human Element in Scripture: The Prophet’s Role as Creative Co-Author, he wrote: "Once we recognize how humans participate in the revelatory process, we can better comprehend how some revelations can be both divinely inspired as well as humanly deficient and how prophets may act as co-authors to the scriptures they give to the world. To fully grasp this concept, however, requires that we “reconstruct the narrative” (to borrow Bushman’s phrase) when understanding how God communicates with His children." Which tends to reflect what you've said here. But one must also remember that who is selected as President of the Church depends entirely upon God's veto. If God didn't want Oaks as President, he wouldn't be there to become such.

I would depend on how different it is, wouldn't it? While can easily imagine a difference of opinion on policy, policy is not the gospel, and I cannot imagine apostles having much of a difference of opinion on Jesus Christ and His atonement.

Pretty cool video! I've visited the Gadfield Elm chapel myself when my brother and sister-in-law came over for a visit a few years ago.

I don't have a problem with that. Title is pretty long, as it is...

So far, $61,000 has been raised on a goal of $100,000. Link is: https://www.givesendgo.com/helptheSanfordfamily

Irrespective of any greater propensity for violence, I'm going to go out on a limb and hark back 100 years and more. In fact, all the way back. Transgenderism was an outlier, close to unknown. Ultimately a nothingburger. But Satan has obviously been working overtime to do everything possible to destroy civilization and Father's work here on earth, as the time for the Lord's return approaches. And this transgenderism epidemic is one result. It is anti-human. It is also quite pernicious, because even the very elect seem to be deceived in regards to it. The leading councils of the Church saw this coming before 1995. This is why the Proclamation on the Family was issued. From Sheri Dew's book, "Insights From a Prophet's Life": One day in 1994, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles spent a day in their council room in the Salt Lake Temple discussing issues surrounding the family. They considered everything from the increasingly ubiquitous nature of pornography to potential anti-family legislation of various kinds. This was not a new discussion, but that day the entire agenda revolved around this one vital topic. The Twelve reviewed both doctrine and policies, considering those things that could not be changed—doctrine—and those things that possibly could be—policies. They discussed issues they saw coming, including an intensified societal push for gay marriage and transgender rights. “But that was not the end of what we saw,” Elder Nelson explained. “We could see the efforts of various communities to do away with all standards and limitations on sexual activity. We saw the confusion of genders. We could see it all coming.” This extended discussion, along with others over a period of time, led to the conclusion that the Twelve should prepare a document, perhaps even a proclamation, outlining the Church’s stand on the family to present to the First Presidency for consideration. “It [the proclamation] was a surprise to some who thought the doctrinal truths about marriage and family were well understood without restatement,” Elder Dallin H. Oaks would later detail in a general conference address. “Nevertheless, we felt the confirmation and we went to work. Subjects were identified and discussed by members of the Quorum of the Twelve for nearly a year” (Oaks, “The Plan”). Dew, Sheri. Insights from a Prophet’s Life: Russell M. Nelson (pp. 251-252). Deseret Book. Kindle Edition. When President Hinckley introduced the Proclamation, in a General Relief Society meeting in September 1995, he said: “With so much of sophistry that is passed off as truth, with so much of deception concerning standards and values, with so much of allurement and enticement to take on the slow stain of the world, we have felt to warn and forewarn. In furtherance of this we of the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles now issue a proclamation to the Church and to the world as a declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family” Dew, Sheri. Insights from a Prophet’s Life: Russell M. Nelson (p. 253). Deseret Book. Kindle Edition. Call me an intolerant Neanderthal. Call me an idiot (thanks @Benjamin McGuire). But the transgender movement is anti-human. It is anti-Christian. It is, as President Hinckley said, a "stain." I have compassion for those few who actually suffer from the mental/emotional disorder called gender dysphoria (and I know a couple), but I refuse to bow to the demands of those who use it for self-promotion, -aggrandizement, and other anti-social purposes. I don't know what else to say about this.

Exactly my point. I'm on the side of Athanasius here. Romans 8:14-17 - 14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. 15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. 16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. If we were not the children of God, wouldn't He have told us? If we were not a special creation of His, would he not have said so? But He continually calls Himself our Father. Granted that He talks also of our subordination and of our unworthiness, but can the sacred blood of Christ's Atonement not overcome these things in the end? Famous Christian apologist C. S. Lewis wrote of this: “It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest most uninteresting person you can talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship…. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all of our dealings with one another… There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal….” C.S. Lewis (The Weight of Glory, pgs. 45-46)

OK, I'm an idiot.

I think it may be something to study, given the recent mass violence committed by transgenders. They've already certainly studied murders of transgender persons, of which there have been too many. The standard talk in certain circles is that if we don't let everyone with gender dysphoria express themselves openly and if we don't support their delusion, then they will delete themselves. If that is true, then they are definitely dangerous to themselves. As for dangerous to others... "Chosen identity"? Whatever does that mean? If a man chooses to become or identify as a KKK member then do you think that he might be significantly more likely to commit violence? How about choosing the identity of Antifa? As for sexual identity, with certain rare exceptions, people are born male or female. One cannot become the opposite from one's birth sex. One can certainly decide to present as the opposite, but this changes appearances only. And now, in our misguided attempts to be uber-tolerant, it is now illegal in Canada to misgender someone. Nowadays, more people are arrested in the UK for social media posts than apparently in Russia. This usually involves offending people by disrespecting Islam, transgenders, immigrants of both kinds, and saying bad words.

Ah, yes. Thanks. Given the recent spate of fatal violence committed by trans persons, wouldn't it be reasonable for there being a legitimate concern that some members of that community may be dangerous both to themselves and others? Obviously blanket institutionalization of persons with gender dysphoria is ridiculous, but on a case by case basis there may be some justification for concern. Or do you feel there's no cause for concern?