webbles

The present D&C 101 was not added in 1876. It was section 98 in 1844 and section 97 in 1835. It was revealed in 1833. See https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/back/corresponding-section-numbers-in-editions-of-the-doctrine-and-covenants

We actually had a thread on this a while ago. There were several ideas put forth on whether or not it is really doctrinal, or how does it work with those with no record of baptism but probably are in Paradise.

Definitely agree that people react differently. I loved rules and awards as a kid. As a cub scout, I got every single arrow point possible as a wolf and as a bear (technically, bears can have infinite arrow points which I figured out and stressed about how I want them all but it was impossible). I got my eagle really early and got most of the merit badges. After that, though, there wasn't really anything left for me to do in YM. So going to Mutual became more of a chore than something I looked forward to. So for me, looking at the current program, it would be really bad for me.

I'm actually glad the church left scouting. I served a mission in Brazil and discovered that scouting is not part of the YM program there. Since most leaders of the church were (and still are) from the US, I felt like they were used to scouting being the YM program and didn't see what was happening to the countries that didn't have scouting. So, by leaving scouting, now the YM program is the same everywhere and I do think that is a good thing. I just wish that they had replaced it with something that had recognition.

Duty to God had a medallion. And YW had medallions as well. All of those recognition are gone.

I think the biggest problem is the rewards are pretty much non existent. With scouting, you would get recognized with merit badges, promotions, etc. But with the new program, I have yet to see any recognition. Nothing to show that a kid finished a goal. And each kid has their own set of goals so how do you plan out activities to help them in their goals when there is no commonality.

Bigler's essay does give a good amount of context on why the murders might have happened. It was during the Utah War. There was a lot of heightened worry. these men came from the California side and had raced to catch up with a Mormon group that was traveling from Carson City to Utah. They apparently did not get along well with the rest of the members of the group. Shortly before reaching Brigham City, the group sent a rider ahead to alert the settlement of the 6 men. The militia had been sent north from Brigham City to stop Col. Alexander from entering Utah through Bear River. That left Brigham City with a small group of defenders who would have been on high alert. The men were interviewed at Brigham City and the answers were evasive. Here's a quote from a letter the interviewer sent to Brigham: One of the men had a letter of recommendation to Col. Johnston (the leader of the US army) saying that he could be trusted to do what ever scheme was needed. (This comes from a journal by one of the participants in the first 4 murders.) In the heightened atmosphere, the way the party acted and the letter of recommendation probably triggered a lot of worry that they were spies. And spies usually don't have a good lifespan in the middle of a war. But, these men were captured around the beginning of November and then 4 (along with guards) were sent back to California using the south route (the one that has Mountain Meadows on it). They were murdered at the end of November just south of Nephi. That gives it a bit more calculated feel. It wasn't a rushed trial (or a series of stupid mistakes like Mountain Meadows Massacre). There was plenty of time to ask for direction from Brigham. It is possible those guarding the 4 men took initiative by themselves, but they also were able to convince the Nephi settlers to help them (4 settlers were involved with the murders). So it does feel like they had orders from someone.

You can create a free jstor account and read it. I went through the document and it mentions that there 5 murders in 3 different locations (2 south of Springville, 2 north of Springville a few days later, and 1 later on). The one that Hickman was involved with is the last one and all the sources come from Brigham's Destroying Angel. He doesn't definitely link the earlier 4 murders to Brigham Young. But the last part, he hints really strongly. One of the travelers (there were 6 original travelers) had written a letter to Brigham for leniency. It appears this person survived; Bigler indicates that there is nothing about this person after he arrives. So, if Brigham allowed 1 of the party to survive, that indicates that Brigham was involved in the murders of the other 5 (per Bigler). Bigler also compares the murders with the Mountain Meadow Massacre and feels that the Aiken murders show that Brigham had to have been involved with MMM. He feels it unlikely that the two were completely independent. Here's a few quotes from the end:

I kind of think time and distance is different after death. I'm also not sure there is a chain of command like you are talking about. If there is one, I would expect it to be more family oriented, not "General Authorities"/"Area Authorities"

The appeals court has issued an opinion for the case against the bishop in his capacity as a doctor. You can read the full opinion at https://www.appeals2.az.gov/Decisions/CV20240030Opinion.pdf The appeals court ruled in favor for the bishop. They ruled that the summary judgment at the Superior court level was correct; there was no factual dispute that would require a trial. It was a 2-1 opinion. The majority decision stated that there is no evidence brought by the Does that show that the bishop was informed of the abuse when he acted as a doctor. Specifically, the law about reporting states that doctors are supposed to report if they learn about the abuse “in the course of treating a patient." Since the bishop learned about the abuse in confessional situations and there is no evidence that he learned about it while caring for the wife and children, then he had no duty to report as a doctor. The dissent is interesting because it argues that the doctor had a common law duty to report, because it is what an ethical doctor would do. I think if the bishop was sued in a civil lawsuit for failing to protect the children, he might loose.

The owner first found it in a trunk that he inherited from his mother in 1992 and tried to open it. He thought it was a pocket watch but since its latch was broken, he didn't want to force it open. He didn't open it till 2020 when he was basically bored at home during covid.

more like a ball rolling down a hill wants to stay at the bottom and not climb back up.

For "entropic gravity", gravity is not a force but a result of the desire of things wanting to go to a lower entropy state. For example, if you release gas into a room, it will quickly expand to fill the whole room. The atoms of the gas are not being pushed to fill the entire room. The 3 quantum forces (strong, weak, electromagnetic) barely act at those distances. Instead it it is caused by the atoms randomly going around and avoiding each other. So no force forces them to expand, just their desire to be at a lower entropy state. Another example is rubber bands. When you stretch a rubber band, the force pulling it back is caused by the entropy of the atoms. They don't want to be stretched as it increases their entropy. With "entropic gravity", the idea is that things with mass actually want to be near each other. That is their lower state. So, there isn't a force pushing them together, it is just where they want to end up and they don't want to leave.

No. It is based on the "entropic gravity" idea. A simplish way to explain it would be: imagine you have a long molecule. Each atom in the molecule is attached to two others so it forms a string like structure. You then put this molecule in a box and attach on end of the molecule to a side. After waiting some time, you look in the box and check the position of the molecule. If you do this millions of times, you'll find that it is more likely to be bunched up against the side that it is attached to. So, you could say that the side had a gravitational force on the molecule. The entropy of the situation causes the molecule to be near that one side. The main entropic gravity idea is based on holographic principles but this new paper says that they can explain entropic gravity using their own theory, called "relativistic transactional interpretation". That theory suggests that everything is just the outcome of stuff emitting photons to other stuff (there is a lot more to that). They can replace the holographic ideas of entropic gravity with this transactional idea and get the same outcome. Which is nice since we haven't yet been able to show that we live in a holographic universe. So removing the holographic ideas from entropic gravity makes it a little more viable.

I thought the church had said that it was always going to be built in Fairview.