Jump to content

Scott Lloyd

Contributor
  • Content Count

    32,055
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

20,737 Excellent

7 Followers

About Scott Lloyd

  • Rank
    Benevolent Internet Tyrant

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

22,644 profile views
  1. Thanks for the links. The Kroger one took me to some Smith’s stores, but it’s the same story: The nearby ones don’t have available slots.
  2. So has demand. They don’t restrict it to over-60 folks anymore, so I missed that window. At this point, I think I’ll just wait for the crowds to thin out. Fauci says everybody has to keep masking and social distancing even after getting vaccinated, so I don’t see much point in being in a hurry for it.
  3. I probably could, but I don’t choose to. I won’t make a road trip for this. Especially if I have to get two doses.
  4. I can’t get an appointment. And I’m in Utah.
  5. We received multiple copies of Howard W. Hunter’s biography as wedding gifts. We couldn’t even return the extras to the store for a refund of the purchase price. It was some time after his death, and the demand just wasn’t there. I was saddened by that, not because I cared so much about recouping the monetary cost of the gifts, but that public affection for and interest in one of the latter-day prophets should so soon subside.
  6. That’s up to you, of course. But I am interested for the same reason I would be interested in the life of any great individual. It might be a source of inspiration and motivation in my own life. Furthermore, a biography of a senior Church leader might give insights into the history of the Church for the period when that leader lived and served. Knowing about Church history is useful to me as I contemplate the rise and progress of the latter-day kingdom of God on earth and my own role in it.
  7. I would definitely nominate President Oaks’s priesthood session address, “What the Savior Has Done for Us.” I don’t know how a talk could get more Christ centered than that. Ironic, as President Oaks was subjected to harsh criticism for having the temerity to give a talk on the Constitution at this same conference.
  8. You’re entitled to your opinion. No one here is begrudging you that. But you’ve gone beyond the mark and claimed there is “hard evidence” when, from what I can tell, you’ve not yet exerted the effort that would be necessary to provide such evidence. It would be a daunting undertaking, surely, but essential to a definitive — or even a persuasive — conclusion.
  9. That goes to my point. Until there is substantive proof or support — difficult or laborious that may be to produce — it is at best an expression of opinion. A nothing-burger. The OP claimed there was “hard evidence.” We’ve yet to see it if there is. And there’s still the point I raised about the subjectivity of determining whether a discourse is or is not “Christ-centered” and how that term is to be defined. A word search, even if reliable, is fallible in that it might overlook synonyms or related words or doctrinal concepts (such as repentance, mercy, salvation, resurrection, Atonem
  10. So, with the purported evidence now being in substantial doubt — and, I would add, the criteria for evaluation tenuous — it appears the premise of this thread is a nothing-burger.
  11. Are you saying her post at Deseret Book was not a religious calling (which would be correct) or that she was not simultaneously in the Relief Society general presidency and the leadership of Deseret Book (which would be incorrect)?
  12. The fact that “Mormon” had become a common substitute for “Jesus Christ” is precisely the reason President Nelson referred to it specifically. There is nothing inherently evil about it; it is only objectionable when it is used as a supplanter for the name of Christ. In concept, that could apply to ANY other word or phrase that might be so used. It would be just as wrong to refer to it as the Church of Joseph Smith or the Josephite Church or to call members of the Church “Brighamites.” So again I say it is not honest to characterize President Nelson as saying use of “Mormon” is a “vict
  13. I’ve already shared such an official use. It’s in the name Book of Mormon, and it still applies to the prophet and compiler of that book of scripture. So it hasn’t been thrown into the scrap heap, as you falsely asserted. And I still say it’s a distortion of President Nelson’s message to say he meant that using the word is in itself a “victory for Satan.” I know it’s a common trope among the Church’s critics to perpetuate that false assertion, but you yourself ought to cease bearing false witness. Why is it so urgent to you that the name be applied by the Church in other official usa
×
×
  • Create New...