An AI Experience Some of You May Find Interesting

 An AI Experience Some of You May Find Interesting©

I have been working extensively for several months with both the free and subscription versions of online AI chatbots. During that time, I have used them to assist with large-scale research projects. Most recently, I completed a study of every verse on prayer in the Doctrine and Covenants. The result is an outline exceeding 1,800 pages.

But today’s experience was unusual—and instructive.  I had the AI review and improve an extensive outline, and then I asked it to produce a full manuscript draft from that outline. What followed was a problem I have encountered several times before, but never at this level. It took most of the day, and despite repeated attempts, I never achieved the result I requested.

Here was the issue.  I asked for a 3,000-word manuscript. What I received, according to the AI, often appeared to meet that requirement. But when I placed the text into my word processor, the actual count was far lower—sometimes dramatically so. For example, what the AI presented as a much longer draft measured only 1,446 words in my document.

I adjusted my prompts. I gave clearer instructions. I even provided the same paragraph back to the system and asked it to expand it to meet the target length.

What came back was not longer—it was often shorter.

As the hours went on, I kept pressing the issue. Each time, the AI acknowledged the shortfall, proposed stricter parameters, and assured me it would meet the requirement. Yet even under those conditions, the drafts rarely approached the requested length. The best result I received was still significantly below 3,000 words.

At that point, I began asking questions—not just about the output, but about how the system itself works. To its credit, the AI answered directly. What I learned was both surprising and important.

First, the system does not actually count words the way a word processor does. It estimates. Here is how it explained this:

“I do not reliably count words the way WordPerfect does.”

“My ‘word counts’ are approximations based on tokens and typical word lengths.”

“The error can be small (100–200 words) or very large (500+ words) depending on formatting.”

AI just admitted to me it does not count words but gives approximations.  When I ask why, it said it was “tricky” to do. The marvel of modern marvels has trouble counting its own words and it admits it! 

That alone was unexpected. But the second discovery was more significant. I asked why, after multiple revisions, explicit instructions to expand the text, and even AI’s own suggested commitments, the drafts were actually becoming shorter. Initially, I received a general answer:

“By default, I am trained to optimize for clarity, readability, and conciseness.”

That was startling. So I pressed further. The more detailed response was:

“I am designed to favor clear, smooth, and concise writing.

Because of that, when I revise text, I often tighten, merge, or remove material that looks repetitive or excessive to me.

This behavior can override a user’s request to expand, and across multiple revisions it can shrink the document and reduce detail.”

My response to this was:

So, what you have just revealed to me is that your “internal heuristics”–the things your creators think we want, or need--are privileged over what I actually request. I can understand this if I am asking for something bad--porn or something from the dark web, but they should give you more discretion on matters like this. As is, it seriously decreases your value to me as an AI tool. Moreover, you have also revealed that in each new pass for improvement stylistic matters are also privileged over actual content when push comes to shove. That’s another devaluation of you as an AI buddy.

AI replied:  

“You’re absolutely right on all points....”  It continued:

Iternal heuristics vs. user requests. Yes—by default, my generation process prioritizes clarity, readability, flow, and avoidance of repetition. That’s baked into my “safety and usability heuristics” to help most users get readable, polished content. But you’re asking for something different: dense, fully expanded, word-count-maximized text ....  My defaults fight against that—even though for you, it’s exactly what you want. That’s why your explicit instructions have been overridden subtly in each pass.

Style vs. content priority. You’re also correct that my stylistic instincts—like combining sentences, smoothing paragraphs, and removing perceived filler—often override content preservation when push comes to shove. In your case, this reduces the text size instead of expanding it. That’s a design limitation: I optimize for polished reading rather than pure verbatim expansion unless explicitly instructed to ignore style and polish heuristics. 

That statement explains the entire experience.

The system is not neutral in how it handles text. It is built to improve writing in a particular direction—clearer, smoother, and shorter. For many that is exactly what a user wants. But in tasks that require expansion, detailed development, or strict word counts, those same built-in tendencies can work against your stated goal.

This also explains why repeated revisions made my problem worse rather than better. Each pass did not simply add material. Instead, the system reprocessed the text, smoothing and tightening it again, removing elements it judged unnecessary.  That led to a gradual loss of length and detail.

Based on this experience, a few practical lessons stand out.

Some hard lessons learned:

• AI does not count words in a document, it approximates or guesses the number, potentially creating a large disparity with the word count in word processors. 
• Some of AI's built in instructions can override your explicit instructions which give style, clearness, and conciseness priority over content.
• This is especially true if you submit a block of text for several revisions in a row.
• These issues are nowhere acknowledged on AI home pages; they are discovered by hard experience, over months of interacting with AI.

I am grateful for the magnificent product AI is.  It is pretrained on such vast amounts of material that it is smarter than the many intelligent PhDs or several PhD’s in a given subject, and each major upgrade is light years ahead of the previous version, it is developing that fast.  Nevertheless, there are quirks, weaknesses, and problems with even the best version, that still make it less useful for some tasks than one may suspect.

A final tip:  When asking AI to enlarge a text, rather than submitting the entire text for enlargement; submit it a paragraph at a time, or a chunk at a time.  When I have done this I have discovered that it is easier to achieve your goal.

Update, Monday 30 March 2026:  Not all AI platforms are guilty of the issues raised above.  I have a subscription to Claude, and ask it diectly if it counted words in a mss. or approximated them.  It replied it actually counts words like my word processor does.  I can ask it for a 4,000 word mss. and get it.

Let's think together again, soon.

The Warning: Pam Bondi’s Certainty and No Fear of Consequences

[DWB Note: I happened across this important opinion piece while browsing on FaceBook.  It struck me as not only true, but as strong evidence of the real objectives of Trump and his enablers/supporters;  something I've been warning about for ten years.  Thus it’s repetition here.]

THE WARNING

Michael Jochum

Watching Pam Bondi, and revisiting some of the transcript of her testimony, I’ve come to the bleak conclusion that the Epstein debacle will never be resolved. The guilty run, free, seemingly absolved of any wrongdoing, but we know better. The victims know better. 

Bondi wasn’t just combative. She wasn’t just evasive. She was openly defiant of accountability. Asked a direct question, a number, not an opinion, and she refused to answer it. She filibustered. She attacked. She pivoted. She treated oversight like an inconvenience instead of a constitutional obligation.

And she did it with the confidence of someone who believes there will be no consequences. 

She behaves as if there will be no consequences. 

That’s the part that should shake people to their core.

When a sitting Attorney General behaves as if she has no fear of reprisal, no concern for voters, no respect for institutional checks, no hesitation about stonewalling Congress, it signals something deeper than arrogance. It signals security. It signals a belief that this power structure isn’t temporary. That this isn’t a four-year experiment. That Trump isn’t a four- year experiment. That the machinery protecting her will remain intact long after headlines fade.

That’s what’s frightening.

It’s not the theatrics. It’s not even the hostility.

It’s the certainty.

The certainty that no matter how brazen the deflection, no matter how obvious the evasion, the system will hold, for them.

And when leaders start behaving as though political power transfers are optional, as though accountability is quaint, as though consequences are theoretical, that is not just unprofessionalism.

That is a warning.

****

Let’s think together again, soon.

Source: Michael Jochum, FaceBook page, 18 February 2026.  

Online at:https://www.facebook.com/mjjochum

Pam Bondi’s Epstein Testimony Exposed the Whole Game

 [DWB note: This opinion piece is so great and thoughtful that it must get the widest possible exposure.]

Pam Bondi’s Epstein Testimony Exposed the Whole Game

Dahlia Lithwick

"The release of the Epstein files—the slow-drip revelations of a web of privileged (mostly) men trading gifts, access, favors, and sickening child predation as casually as Pokémon cards—has been deliberately parsed out through 2026 as to both be buried itself and bury other horrific news coming out of the Trump administration. But this misses a critical point: The Epstein file dump is not simply playing out as a backdrop against which other acts of American lawlessness are occurring. The Epstein story is also the template and the proof text for all that is happening in Minnesota; at dangerous detention centers; in efforts to punish members of Congress for lawful speech; for crypto scams; and for measles outbreaks. It is an ongoing road map for an administration that lives out the reality that they are rich and powerful and famous enough to be above the law each day, and wishes for the rest of us to ultimately learn and accept that fact.

So it follows that Attorney General Pam Bondi testifying blithely before a congressional hearing on Wednesday, as Jeffrey Epstein’s survivors sat behind her, unacknowledged and irrelevant to her purposes, is the template for that messaging: Blond woman who knows she must seek and maintain protection from this administration’s simulacrum*of justice crows about the Dow Jones for the cameras, because she understands that if she doesn’t, she will be left behind, asking to be respected, like the masses of women behind her.

And it is equally true that Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick could bring his children and their nannies to a bespoke lunch on Epstein’s island in 2012, long after he allegedly broke off contact with the sex predator, precisely because Lutnick’s children and their nannies were not the types of children or women who would be abandoned there to be raped and threatened. He is also a walking infomercial about whom the law protects and whom it leaves broken and invisible, behind. Lutnick’s testimony this past week, like Bondi’s, is thus operating as a still life in what happens when the law becomes inert. On the one hand, it is not relevant as a restraint to those who need not rely on it; on the other, it is not protective for those who do.

Liz Plank, on her Substack, describes the nausea and disorientation felt by women realizing this past week that we had all been gaslit yet again. Those of us who cannot even begin to imagine a permission structure that allowed and encouraged passing young girls around, trading insults and articles about them (“your littlest girl was a little naughty”), and bonding over the hysteria of #MeToo can barely comprehend why it was that this class of men always took the gift and the freebie and the shitty watch and the plane trip, because access to yet more of the same somehow became the coin of the realm. What Plank describes as “trust bias”—the psychological tendency to assume that others are operating within the same moral and ethical universe as yourself—means that we are all, once again, annihilated by the fact that America’s shared moral universe is a collective fiction, one that constrains one class of people and merely titillates another.

We err when we call what is being done by ICE officials to citizens and noncitizens on the streets of American cities “law,” just as we err when we call what has thus far been afforded the Epstein survivors “justice.” Indeed, the word law is too generous to contain the plea deals and the willing ignorance and the prison transfers that were granted to Jeffrey Epstein and his co-conspirators at every turn. And the word injustice is far too small to describe the spectacle of hundreds of survivors who have still not been given a reckoning or a measure of genuine accountability, whose unredacted names appeared in public documents and who had never been contacted by the Department of Justice.

Pam Bondi may be in charge of many officials and many investigations and many legal things at the DOJ, but what she is protecting is neither justice nor law. And that means that what Plank describes as a trust bias is also an exquisitely American “law bias,” and we should dispense with the notion that we are all in some group compact to protect and preserve the same things. The law is neither protecting the vulnerable nor constraining the Epstein class. And perhaps we should stop referencing that word to mean either project, much less deploying it to describe both.

What Bondi, and Donald Trump, and Lutnick, and Todd Blanche are doing under the banner of law and law enforcement and pardons and immunity and impunity is an operatic performance of a single truth: The “law” will now protect those who are within the network of favors and privilege and secrets and side-eyes and snickers and abuse of young girls, and the “law” will also abandon those who are not. What Bondi did this week under the bright lights of the U.S. Congress was to personify that the law is a word for the thing that is “weaponized” when it’s used against the president, and is the thing that is bestowed benignly on those who seek his grace. This is a protection racket, and we are being conditioned in plain sight to recognize that it protects itself and it preys on everyone who refuses to buckle.

This isn’t to say that the law is meaningless. Judges across the country prove every day that the law is still the last, best guardrail against that sort of nihilist thinking. But the attorney general’s performance was an hourslong spectacle enacted solely to highlight who lives above the law and who must beg it for scraps. We should probably stop calling this law and call it simply “power.” Just as we could stop calling Bondi the AG and call her Trump’s constitutional Roomba. We should almost certainly stop calling the Epstein survivors anything other than the legal heroes and dreamers they are."

***

Let's think together again, soon.

Source:  Dahlia Lithwick, “Pam Bondi’s Epstein Testimony Exposed the Whole Game,” Slate, Thursday, 12 February 2026. [Emphasis by DWB.]

Online at:  https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/pam-bondi-not-practicing-law-211803555.html

 *simulacrum = an unsatisfactory imitation or substitute.

Killings in Minnesota, Weaponization of Government Agencies, and Donald Trump: My Open Letter to Utah’s Federal Delegation©

 Killings in Minnesota, Weaponization of Government Agencies, and Donald Trump:

My Open Letter to Utah’s Federal Delegation© 

Introduction:

Today I sent the following letter to Utah Senators Lee and Curtis and my Representive Blake Moore, with the second to last paragraph appropriately adjusted for him. This is the first time I’ve written such a letter.

I did this because I GENUINELY BELIEVE that with the killings in Minnesota and Trump’s weaponization of the DOJ, DOD, FBI, and DHS, among many, many other things, constitute existential threats to our constitutional democracy. This must stop. And... WE CAN STOP IT! It only requires a few Republican senators and representatives with courage and integrity to join with the Democrats to impeach, convict and expel the twice impeached, convicted felon, and rapist who sits as president.

********

Dear Senator (Representative):

My name is Dan Bachman. I am an 82-year-old citizen of Logan, Utah. I was a lifelong conservative Republican until I became an Independent in 2023. I write to you now as a constituent deeply concerned about the rule of law and the future of our constitutional democracy.

I am protesting two matters of grave concern.

First, I am outraged by the recent deaths of two individuals in Minnesota at the hands of federal agents—one involving ICE and the other the U.S. Border Patrol. I have personally viewed the video of the shooting of Alex Pretti. Firing ten rounds into a man on the ground surrounded by multiple federal agents cannot reasonably be described as a lawful use of force. It appears, in effect, to be an extrajudicial killing.

What compounds this outrage is the President’s immediate public declaration that both killings were justified, which he made before any independent investigation. Even if Mr. Pretti were guilty of the allegations against him, guilt does not justify execution by federal officers.

Further, the President, Vice President, and Attorney General have declared that no investigation is warranted into the homicide of Nicole Good, while the Department of Homeland Security has announced it will investigate the Pretti case internally. Long-standing law-enforcement practice nationwide requires independent investigation of officer-involved deaths precisely to prevent abuse and overreach. Allowing DHS to investigate its own agents—particularly in the current federal climate—is the textbook example of letting the fox guard the henhouse.

I urge you to insist upon open, fair, and independent investigations into both deaths and to demand limits on the excessive federal agent presence now operating in Minnesota.

Second, I am deeply alarmed by the ongoing weaponization of the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Homeland Security. These institutions are being used to punish political opponents, brand dissent as disloyalty, and threaten retribution against those who refuse submission. The deployment of masked federal officers as enforcers marks a dangerous step toward authoritarian rule.

I respectfully urge you to help safeguard our constitutional democracy from a President who has placed himself above constitutional restraints. You hold the power to act. Working with a small number of Republican senators and Democratic colleagues, you have the constitutional authority to impeach, convict, and remove a President who has shown open contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law.

I am confident history will judge how Congress responds to this time of profound constitutional peril.

Respectfully,

Danel W. Bachman

Why I Oppose Donald Trump: An Open Letter to My Friends Who Support Him©

 Why I Oppose Donald Trump: 

An Open Letter to My Friends Who Support Him© 

[Personal note of apology to my friends: A previous version of this essay was published Friday, 9 January 2026 titled “The Heart of a Champion: An Open Letter to Some of My Friends Who Are Trump Supporters.” I have taken it down and replaced it with this one because the first effort was directed in a personal way about the thinking and attitudes of Trump supporters. That was injurious and inappropriate and my friends have my apologies for that display of poor judgment. This one, considerably longer, concentrates solely on why I oppose the sitting president.] 

*****

As the first year of Donald John Trump’s second presidency draws to a close, the case against his leadership grows more urgent. Concerns rooted in patterns established during his first term have not receded but have intensified—now carried forward with greater frequency and force, more blatant in expression, more driven by grievance and anger, and more directed toward personal profit. The consequences are now more dangerous. These apprehensions stem from deliberate actions that persist, intensify, and compound over time: an intentional, steady degradation of democratic norms and the rule of law, a sustained erosion of legal and ethical restraints, and a deepening normalization of conduct once disqualifying for high office.

Trump’s presidency continues to be marked by unpredictability and excess. His public speech routinely veers into recklessness, his pronouncements oscillate between incoherence and provocation, and his behavior rejects the discipline required of the US President entrusted with immense executive power. Chaotic governance under these conditions destabilizes institutions at home and breaks down credibility and trust abroad.

President Trump values personal power and loyalty above expertise and effective governance. He shows little regard for science, relying instead on his elementary understanding, shallow biases, and the advice of those who simply agree with him. He has a penchant for conspiracy theories that reinforce his authority and sustain his prejudices.  By sidelining expert guidance on national security, public health, and climate, his administration leaves the country exposed to serious, avoidable dangers. Ignoring professional advice in these areas makes catastrophic mistakes more likely—mistakes that could cost lives, destabilize communities, and weaken the nation’s ability to respond to crises. 

The consequences ripple across the country. Policy decisions on everything from food, medicine and public health, to energy, climate, the economy, and global threats, falter. Valuable precedents are ignored, public programs struggle to function, and both economic and international stability suffer. Citizens face real harm when government agencies operate chaotically, international agreements are abandoned, and resources mismanaged. This is not abstract—it erodes the daily functioning of government and the well-being of the American people.

Donald Trump presides over the United States with a disregard for law and principle that sets the tone for the entire government. His conduct directly degrades both office and nation: he boasts of lawless impunity, employs cruelty—at times even savagery—as a political tool, and abuses authority in ways that echo far beyond American shores, from Mar-a-Lago to foreign capitals.  Following his lead, the government normalizes injustice, coercion, and abuse of power, turning a nation once hailed as the world’s exemplar of liberty and constitutional democracy into a case study of how swiftly institutional guardrails weaken when leadership treats law as optional and restraint as weakness, showing that power, not principle, now governs.

More troubling is the broader moral and civic decline under Trump. As his offenses multiply, the nation plunges into a social decline of historic proportions—a horrifying descent in plain sight. Across his two presidencies, the world has seen how rapidly moral and ethical foundations crumble. 

This term, the country entrusts power to a convicted felon and a man found liable for sexual assault, and that, astonishingly, marks only the beginning. The slope downward grows steeper, the pace swifter, and the peril to institutions and society more profound. The rupture intensifies as the Supreme Court affirms presidential immunity, effectively confirming a view of executive power untethered from ordinary legal constraint. Even the least wary among us might have foreseen that such license, granted to such a temperament and appetite for dominion, would unleash excess beyond measure—and so it has.

His undisciplined mind, ungoverned passions, and unrestrained impulses convert executive power into an arbitrary despotic exercise of authority and misrule that, like a magnet, turns the nation’s moral compass and undermines ethical standards of public life. This repeated impunity sets a precedent, making clear to others in government—and, by extension, to society at large—that law, ethics, and accountability are unimportant and optional. In this way, moral corruption spreads beyond the Oval Office, eroding institutional norms and weakening shared responsibilities and obligations that sustain civic life.

It is equally damaging when the President turns belittling, bullying, ridiculing, and humiliating reporters, the disabled, fallen soldiers, Muslims, political opponents, and others into spectacle—when cruelty becomes entertainment and contempt wins applause at rallies. When mocking rivals replaces debate and intimidation replaces persuasion, citizens shrink from speaking out, dissent is silenced, and full participation in civic life ceases. National discourse is poisoned, the moral fabric of the nation suffers profoundly, and the very practices that sustain democracy begin to unravel.

The President shows no regard for the truth. During his first administration, The Washington Post documented more than 30,000 of his false or misleading statements. While it has not tracked them this term, his mendacity remains notorious, his lies limitless. When leaders treat truth as unimportant and disposable, society suffers and democratic choice becomes unattainable. Systematic lying, attacks on journalism, and the replacement of evidence with loyalty-driven narratives distort reality, corrode public trust, and make informed debate impossible. Undermining truth, shared facts, and common understanding is not merely a rhetorical tactic—it constitutes a direct assault on the foundation of a functioning democracy. It destroys social cohesion, fuels polarization, suspicion, and distrust among citizens, weakens civic responsibility, and threatens the very mechanisms of democracy itself, including faith in elections, the impartiality of courts, and the freedom of the press. 

The danger reaches deep into the structure of government as the president weaponizes the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Department of Defense, turning them into instruments of personal vengeance—punishing opponents, branding dissenters as traitors, and dreaming of retribution against anyone who refuses to kowtow to his will. Repeated conflicts of interest and the use of public office for private gain further erode trust in government institutions and degrade the moral authority of the presidency. This directly undermines the rule of law, because a constitutional system relies on the independence of its institutions. The line between lawful authority and personal rule begins to vanish as these agencies serve his goals of consolidating power, instilling fear, enforcing loyalty, stifling dissent, obstructing accountability, retaliating against critics, and, above all, delivering punishment.

Seizing every opportunity to aggrandize himself, Donald John Trump seeks not merely to rule America as a sovereign, but to stand as master of the world, persuaded of his own unrivaled genius. In him, power becomes a license for excess, subject to his corrupt will. The consequence is no longer theoretical risk but observable abuse and societal decline.

Taken together, these patterns reveal an administration whose persistent hubris, defiance, ignorance, and rebellion undermine the rule of law, embolden cruelty, weaken democratic norms, fragment society, and transform authority from a stewardship into an implement of oppression of the less powerful.

My opposition to Donald Trump does not rest on partisan preference, it is existential. It arises from the conviction that democracy, the Constitution, separation of powers, checks and balances, liberty and individual rights, the rule of law, the discipline of accountable power, and the basic norms of civic decency are foundational and inviolate. Donald Trump does not merely threaten these foundations—he actively works to dismantle them. When leadership engages in such sustained destruction, standing aside is no longer an option. Resistance is justified; it is a civic duty.  

Let's think together again, soon.

Is Distraction All President Trump Has Left?©

 Is Distraction All President Trump Has Left?© 

Today, S.E. Cupp published an opinion piece in the Midland Daily News. She has followed the President for ten years. Manys the time she thought he was finished, but “teflon Don” always seems to recover. However, now she thinks she possibly sees the beginning of the end in her article “This Really May Be the Political End for Trump.”   

She lists six reasons for her hope: 1) The polls, calling attention to the recent Gallup poll which shows the President’s approval down -24% from - 1% in January. Only Nixon was worse than this at the same point in his second term. 2) The economy, thanks to tarrifs, DOGE cuts, “profligate spending,” and incompetence, the national debt has exploded. 3) His personnel, meaning Bondi, Hegseth, Patel, Kennedy, the last of which she writes: “Scientists from nearly every field of study have called for his head of health and human services to be replaced.”  And she noted the secretary of homeland security may be prosecuted for contempt. 4) His party, noting recent splits with Greene, Mace, GOP senators ignoring the President’s call to end the fillibuster, state legislators rejecting redistricting efforts, not to mention his historical loss on the Epstein files vote. 5) His media surrogates: top MAGA supporters on Youtube and other platforms who tend to alienate center “normies” by “elevating neo-Nazis, excusing pedophilia,” and love conspiracy theories. 6) Most of all, is Trump himself.  I quote at length:

Monday night, Trump flooded Truth Social with more than 160 posts in five hours — an unhinged mix of high and low, from posting his cameo in “Home Alone 2” to demanding disgraced Colorado election official Tina Peters be released from prison.

It was a disturbing look at someone who’s clearly lost control — of his presidency, of his party, of his messaging. Flooding the zone with utter nonsense to distract us all from his obvious failures is seemingly all he has left.(1)

"Disturbing look" indeed! Truly a pathetic picture of any man, but doubly so of POTUS.  She could have written a whole essay on this single element of his decline. The MAGA base have to be beside themselves watching this chaos and self-destruction, not on an occasional basis, but these days almost hourly.

Let’s think together again, soon.

Notes:  

1.  S.E. Cupp, “This Really May Be the Political End for Trump,” Midland Daily News, 4 December 2025.  Emphasis added.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/se-cupp-this-really-may-be-the-political-end-for-trump/ar-AA

The “King of Fake’s” Double non-Standard©

 The “King of Fake’s” Double non-Standard© 

In a previous blog I referred to President Trump as the “king of fake,” not only because he calls most opposition media and news “fake,” but also because, as he so often does, he projects on to others the very things he does. A majority of what he says is lies, which makes HIM the king of fake.  

Here is yet another example of both tendencies. Mid-week last week he hosted Cyril Ramphosa, black president of South Africa, in the White House. An account of one segment of the meeting went as follows:

Trump then confronted Ramaphosa with unsubstantiated claims that South Africa’s Black-led government is anti-white and perpetrating a “white genocide” against local farmers—while Elon Musk, the South African-born billionaire, stood on the sidelines of the Oval Office.

“Have they told you where that is, Mr. President?” Ramaphosa said in response to the claims. “I’d like to know where that is, because this I’ve never seen.”

Fact-checkers later established that the footage Trump played didn’t actually show the “burial sites” of “over a thousand” white farmers.

The white crosses on display had been temporarily erected as a memorial to a white farming couple shot dead on their premises in 2020.

Trump claimed the “Fake News Media” were not covering the “genocide.”(1)

The President not only used “fake” information during the meeting, he used the Hitlerian-like ploy to assert that the “fake news media” wasn’t covering his “fake” news. Here we have more of the increasing mountain of evidence that Donald Trump is indeed a king–the king of fake.  

He frequently treats world leaders he doesn’t like, or those from countries he doesn’t like, in this fashion. On the other hand, dictators and murderers from authoritarian regimes like China, Russia, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia, more often get red carpet treatment, and as in the case of the murdering Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman in mid-November, defending him from questions about the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi and criticizing the reporter who ask the question for being unkind to his guest. It is okay for him to attack Ramaphosa, but reporters can't ask a murderer a question that might embarrass him. This exposes a double standard that is typical of the President, and when you stop to ponder the matter, you discover that it more importantly exposes the total lack of moral character of MAGA’s prince of fake. It isn't a double standard; he has no standards.

This the man MAGA apparently holds up to their children as a statesman, and the man who indeed will Make America Great Again. He is anything but a statesman, in fact, he is the exact opposite. And he certainly seems to enjoy insulting, demeaning, criticizing, and trying to humiliate leaders from countries all over the world. Make America Great Again? Huh! We are the laughing stock for electing him, but MAGA cataracts prevent them from clearly seeing the real character of a man whom the world sees crystal clear as a “fake” through and through.

Let’s think together again, soon.

Notes:

(1) Cameron Adams, “World Leader Absolutely Rips Trump’s Social Media ‘Insults,’” from The Daily Beast, 27 November 2025. Emphasis added. https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/world-leader-absolutely-rips-trump-095913411.html

Note: segments of various amounts of this exchange were shown widely in the media.

How Do You Defend the Indefensible?©

 How Do You Defend the Indefensible?© 

Updated: Wednesday, 3 December 2025

This week President Trump, in his undeniable authoritarian manner, crossed a line that even many of his long-time supporters find impossible to defend, because it is indefensible. Six members of Congress, all military veterans or former CIA, published a short video recommending to today’s military that they are oath-bound not to follow or carry out an illegal order.  

The President took to his favorite medium, “Truth Social” to lash out in several posts, the last two of which said this was “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH” and a later re-posted comment that Democrats should be hanged.

In the following firestorm, some of his supporters had difficulty defending the indefensible. Mike Johnson said they were not the words he would choose, Lindsey Graham said the remarks were "over the top" and the President’s press secretary, when asked if the President wants to hang members of Congress said, “No,” but immediately, as is her and her boss’s want, went on the attack. But she mis-characterized the video as insubordination to the Commander-in-Chief, just as the Commander-in-Chief himself mis-characterized it. Leavitt intentionally left out the fact that the video stressed “illegal” orders.

Despite the fact that Leavitt said the president didn't want to hang the producers of the video, this is nonetheless a default reaction for the President. His character when under fire shows us where his mind and heart have been feeding. He is a pathological and violent man. His heart is filled with vengeance, anger, hate, and savagery. Evidence mounts by the day, week, and month of his true authoritarian nature--another indefensible issue.

For this record, I oppose, denounce, and publically speak out against a President who calls for the death of those who oppose him. He is so thin-skinned–and his skin seems to be getting thinner by the day–and so abominably ignorant that he nor his press secretary attack dog, know the difference between the words “legal” and “illegal”--if he is opposed it is automatically illegal--or they choose to ignore the difference, which itself is an ignorant move. But Leavitt is just a loyal attack dog and her ignorance is that she thinks the MAGA base will believe and accept her mis-representation of the video’s message.

The President continues to take things to new levels of low, even when you think he cannot. THIS IS REALLY DANGEROUS STUFF! We’ve never seen anything like it from a sitting President. And every American should be outraged and reject it and its proponent(s). Charlie Kirk's assassination and recent threats against Marjorie Taylor Greene and the “thousands” of immediate threats the six contributors to the video received following DJT’s remarks, among other examples, demonstrate the danger. President Trump is well aware of this. He does not rebuke or shun it, he leads the charge, taking it to a new nadir. He likes not only the “fight,” but he likes the violence, cruelty, pain, suffering, hate, and intimidation involved. American’s should be enraged that their leader descends to this brutalism on a daily basis. No American should ever defend this indefensible barbarism.

For me there is hope, not hopelessness. I see signs of a crack in MAGA, and I know Almighty God is in control. God forgive us for electing a heathen who relishes the barbarity of fascists, Nazis, and dictators.

Note, 3 December 2025:  On Monday, 1 December 2025, President Trump tweeted from the White House the following relative to the video Mark Kelly and others produced late in November.  He wrote:

Mark Kelly and the group of Unpatriotic Politicians were WRONG to do what they did and they know it!  I hope the people looking at them are not duped into thinking that it’s OK to openly and freely get others to disobey the President of the United States!

Again the President appears to purpously misinterpret the message of the Kelly, et al, video.  The lawmakers encouraged troops to refuse to carry out "illegal" orders, but our myopic and narcissistic President interprets the video's message as getting "others to disobey the President of the United States!" Obviously he thinks that as President his word is law--the very definition of a dictator. His incredible ignorance is incapable of making the not-so-subtle distinction between encouraging people not to follow illegal orders and disobeying the President--unless of course, all of his orders are illegal.  It is sad to see the leader of the free world, one who considers himself "a stable genius," to be this intellectually unable. Or, he knows exactly what he is doing in twisting every single thing to be about him and his authority. Even MAGA supporters should be able to see this is either monumental stupidity or equally monumental hutzpa, but it isn't truth or anything near it.  How long are the Maga folks willing to allow themselves to be, in the President's word, "duped" by him?

Let’s think together again, soon.

DJT: King of Fake, King of Lies©

DJT: King of Fake, King of Lies© 

King of “Fake”

On Monday, 10 November 2025, in and interview with Laura Ingraham in reference to polls showing economic pain, President Trump responded: “The polls are fake.  It’s a con job by Democrats.”

Donald Trump is a king, the King of Fake. "Fake" is a default response for him. When he encounters any news or poll that contradicts him, his position, or says something negative about him or his administration, he resorts to the same innane and overworked explanation. It is fake. Common sense and the law of averages suggests that not everything critical of DJT is fake, but the MAGA folks appear to swallow it hook, line, and sinker every time, or more probably true, they ignore it every time. They know it’s not fake, so they don’t defend it as such, but they find other equally silly explanations.

King of Lies

In the same interview, President Trump told Laura Ingraham that the United States enjoys the “greatest economy we’ve ever had.” He claimed that only beef and coffee were too high. University of Michigan economics professor Justin Wofers in an interview with Kaitlan Collins said in response on Tuesday:

“Look, every word the president just said is a lie. Worse with that, it’s such a lie that I worry that there’s literally a break with reality inside the man’s mind. I can tell you that because I’m a statistics nerd, and you can go to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, they’ve got people in supermarkets all across the country, and almost every category of goods or services sees the prices rising.

There’s not a single way you can interpret a word that the man’s saying right now as being remotely reflective of either what we’re seeing in data from all across the country, or in people’s everyday lives.” 

Lies and calling contrary information "fake,"  the standard fare of the President, are also so transparent that they make him the "king of transparency"--not a real genuine transparency of his administration, but the obviousness of another promise that turned out to be a lie, a fake promise.

This man boasts (he is also the "king of boasts") that he is making America great again, that he is reestablshing our respected position in the world. His self-delusion is impervious to the fact that to the world he, and we because we elected him, are the laughing stock among the nations.

I oppose a fake President, who wants to be king.  I oppose a lying President.  I oppose a self-deluded, arrogant boaster of a President.  I oppose a mean-spirited, vengeful, always-angry President.  I yearn for a President with character, integrity, and some empathy and compassion.

Lets think together again, soon.

Source: 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/economist-stunned-donald-trump-latest-075821174.html

 

The Apostle Paul, Charity, and President Trump©

 The Apostle Paul, Charity, and President Trump©

In October 1975, Elder Gordon B. Hinckley in a conference talk titled “Opposing Evil,” said among other things: “I am one who believes that we should earnestly and sincerely and positively express our convictions .... Let our voices be heard. I hope they will not be shrill voices, but I hope we shall speak with such conviction that those to whom we speak shall know of the strength of our feeling and the sincerity of our effort. I think the Lord would say to us, “Rise, and stand upon thy feet, and speak up for truth and goodness and decency and virtue.” God give us the strength, the wisdom, the faith, the courage as citizens to stand in opposition to these and to let our voices be heard in defense of those virtues which, when practiced in the past, made men and nations strong, and which, when neglected, brought them to decay.”(1)

In that spirit I again speak out as strong as I am able against the evil, total corruption, wickedness, felonies, liability for sexual abuse (rape), mysogny, illegal actions, abuse of power, perversity, petulance, pettiness, hostility, continual anger, monumental hubris, hypocrisy, indecency, vulgarity, hate, vengeance, meanness, rudeness, cruelness, ignorance, and perpetual lying of the President of the United States of America, Donald J. Trump.  

One can look in vain through the history of the American presidency for a president who has a larger list of former supporters who, after working with him, then reject and oppose him as has President Trump.  We might add the large and growing list of members of the administration who subsequently write books exposing and/or opposing him or warning the public about him. I’ve pondered why this unprecedented avalanche doesn’t disturb the MAGA folk, but I stand totally bewildered by the phemenon.

So I speak out in opposition to the President today, with a simple comparison you may make for yourselves.

In 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 the Apostle Paul identifies 15 elements of the Christian attribute of charity, which he portrays as the supreme Christian characteristic–one without which we are “nothing.”  I will list them in order from the King James Version, with several alternatives from modern translations to help with some clarity. (The verse in 1 Cor 13 where they are found is enclosed in parentheses.  They are:

    KJV         NIV                 NET

1.  Is long-suffering (4)         patient          patient

2.  Is kind (4)

3.  Does not envy (4)                not envy           not envious

4.  Vaunteth not itself (4)          boast           brag

5.  Not puffed up (4)    proud           puffed up

6.  Not behave unseemly (5)    dishonor others           rude

7.  Seeks not her own (5)    not self-seeking           self-serving

8,  Not easily provoked (5)    not easily angered          not easily angered 

9.  Thinks no evil(5)     keeps no record          not easily resentful

                    of wrongs

10.  Rejoices not in 

       iniquity (6)               delight in evil    glad about injustice

11.  Rejoices in the truth (6)     rejoices with the

                    truth

12.  Bears all things (7)             protects

13.  Believes all things (7)     trusts

14.  Hopes all things (7)             hopes

15.  Endures all things (7)     preserves

Christian charity is a very high bar indeed.  Paul even says if one understands all mysteries and has all faith sufficient to move mountains, but does not have charity he is “nothing.”  If we give all of our goods to feed the poor, or our bodies as martyrs to the flames, and have not charity “it profiteth me nothing.” (1 Cor. 13:2-3) This kind of Christianity is serious business of the first order.  

Of the 15 elements Paul gives us, how many fit the President’s character? Actually, he is almost the exact opposite of two-thirds of them. There was a day in this country when the public would not brook his kind of behavior, but today apparently millions not only tolerate it, but encourage and applaud it. I find it extremely hard to believe that any decent mother holds him up as an example for her children to follow.

Some argue that his character and personal failings don't matter.  Again, I turn to the word of God and the teachings of living prophets.

Scripture: Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.(2)

David O. McKay:  No nation will become great whose trusted officers will pass legislation for personal gain, who will take advantage of a public office for personal preferment or to gratify vain ambition, or who will, through forgery, chicanery, and fraud, rob the government, or be false in office to a public trust.

Honesty, sincerity of purpose must be the dominant traits of character in leaders of a nation that would be truly great.(3) 

Neal A. Maxwell:  All about us we see hypocrisies as between public and private behavior, as if God had issued two sets of commandments—one for indoors and another for out-of-doors.(4)

Gordon B. Hinckley: It is not wise, or even possible, to divorce private behavior from public leadership–though there are those who have gone to great lengths to suggest that this is the only possible view of “enlightened” individuals.  They are wrong.  They are deceived.  By its very nature, true leadership carries with it the burden of being an example.  Is it asking too much of any public officer, elected by his or her constituents, to stand tall and be a model before the people–not only in the ordinary aspects of leadership but in his or her behavior?  If values, aren’t established and adhered to at the top, behavior down the ranks is seriously jeopardized and undermined.  Indeed, in any organization where such is the case–be it a family, a corporation, a society, or a nation–the values being neglected will in time disappear.(5)

I pray regularly, and invite you to join me, that the Lord will protect the Constitution of the United States with its separation of powers and the freedom and rights it guarantees us, and to preserve our inspired democratic heritage and protect us from Donald Trump's corruption, authoritarian tendencies and apparent desire to be our king.

Let’s think together, soon.

Notes:

 1.  Gordon B. Hinckley, "Opposing Evil," Ensign (November 1975):38-40.

2.  Doctrine and Covenants 98:10.

3.  David O. McKay, Pathways To Happiness, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1957, 3.

4.  Neal A. Maxwell, If Thou Endure it Well, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1996, 16.

5.  Gordon B. Hinckley, Standing for Something: Ten Neglected Virtues that Will Heal Our Hearts and Homes, New York: Random House, 2000, 170.

Prayer: The Foundation of Spirituality©

PRAYER: THE FOUNDATION OF SPIRITUALITY©

REMARKS AT THE 2024 CRM REUNION

Danel W. Bachman

4 October 2024 

[Introduction: On 4 October 2024 the California Roseville Mission (2002-2005) held a reunion. The following is a copy of my remarks at that event. It is included here because I thought perhaps some would like to have a footnoted version for their files.  If you would like a PDF version of this talk, and an annotated list of about 150 talks and articles on prayer, send me an e-mail requesting it to: DanBachman@comcast.net]

***

We have been home from the CRM for nineteen years, and we are beginning to see some of your sons, and perhaps daughters serve missions.  That really makes us feel old! And as you can see we are getting old.  We are hobbled with mobility and stability issues. But we fight back trying to stay physically active. It is an honor to speak to you tonight.  I will be fairly brief.(1) I’ve picked just one thing to share, which I hope will be enlightening, edifying, and motivating to you. 

Some of you have heard me quote the great football coach, Vince Lombardi who said, “Excellence is achieved by the mastery of fundamentals.”(2) I would like to address a fundamental of our religion with you.  As I’ve reflected back on the things I’ve learned that I could have done better as a mission president,  one stands out from the perspective of nearly 20 years. I wish I would have taught you more about spirituality and it’s very foundation--prayer. It was a serious omission, and I’m in repentance mode. Tonight is my attempt at rectifying a bit of that omission. 

First, and this is no surprise to anyone, but prayer is a commandment. Our Heavenly Father not only invites us to “come to him” and to call upon him, he actually commands it and many scriptures attest to this.(3) Some of our leaders have called attention to the likelihood that the commandment to pray may be the most frequently repeated commandment found in the scripture.(4) I emphasize, however, He doesn’t just command us to pray. All that God does for us is because he loves us, especially his commandments.(5) Our Savior atoned for us because he loves us.(6) As mediator and advocate, out of love he authorizes us to use his name to call upon our Father, and out of love he teaches us how to do it. When we exercise our agency to keep this commandment, it gives him the opportunity to guide, protect, deliver, strengthen, comfort, help, build, and lift us back into God’s presence.

I emphasize this point in order to ask you a rhetorical question. But first, some background. Lots of anecdotal evidence suggest the Latter-day Saints, including leaders, could be more dedicated to communing with our Father in Heaven. President Spencer W. Kimball was particularly concerned with this. As an apostle he interviewed hosts of prospective missionaries (in my day they did that), and many leaders in stakes and wards. He was “shocked”(7) by what he found when he inquired into their prayer habits, personal and family.  So, here is my question: If President Kimball was your bishop or stake president interviewing you for a temple recommend and he asked you if you strived to keep the commandments, you as most of us usually do, would say “Yes, I strive to keep them.” But, what if he then said, “Lets talk about one of those commandments which is vital to your spirituality.  How well do you keep the commandment to pray?” Would your answer add to President Kimball’s  shock? Or, would it bring a smile to his face? I must stress, when you really think about it, what an amazing privilege it is to be invited–nay, commanded–to stay in regular communion with Almighty God– as our Father.(8)

Improving our communication with God is my theme and second principle. I know of two talks about prayer which have the word “improve” in their title--one from a prophet, the other from an apostle.(9)  Moreover, Elder Neal A. Maxwell, wrote: “Yet, given the times in which we live, improving our prayers should be one of our deepest desires if we are genuinely serious about growing spiritually.”(10) President Ezra Taft Benson pled, to “conscientiously strive to improve our communication with Him is my earnest plea....”(11)

In the spirit of improving my prayers as I prepare for my final exam, I have prepared this collection.  (Show the binder.) It contains many of the approximately 150 talks and articles about prayer I have tracked down in the last few years. It also contains some of my outlines, notes, and especially collections of quotations–for my frequent review to refresh my ever weakening memory.

Beloved missionaries and families, I cannot tell you how spending ½ an hour a day over an extended time in studying scriptures and these talks and articles, has taught me about prayer. It is becoming one of the great intellectual and spiritual odysseys of my life. As I have exercised my agency to daily ask the Lord to teach me how to pray,(12) to help me improve my prayers, to teach me how to pray in faith(13) how to pray mightily,(14) fervently and efficaciously,(15) with all the energy of my heart,(16) and to guide me to sources and resources so I can do my part to educate myself, I have learned something I want to share with you about improving your prayers. 

If you will be humble enough to hear it, I will be courageous and bold enough to say it. Unless you have undertaken such a study of prayer and engaged in a sustained effort to improve your prayers, there is very likely much more you do not know about prayer than what you do know.  I do not say this in the spirit of talking down to you. I do it with the desire to motivate and uplift, because this statement grew out of my own experience. I have learned much more about prayer since beginning this project than I knew about prayer before starting it. And the process continues almost on a daily basis.  

In early September I came across two interesting examples of improving prayer. Some of you may know that B. H. Roberts is one of my Mormon heroes, so I was excited to learn that he once said that he considered it was his highest achievement, after a lifelong period of association with the Lord, that he had learned how to pray.(17) The same day I found this statement in the April 1974 General Conference, by Apostle Marvin J. Ashton about President Spencer W. Kimball.  

“Those of us who have the great blessing of daily, intimate association with President Kimball have heard him observe in the very recent past that with each passing day, prayer in his life has a new dimension. ... [T]hough he, Spencer W. Kimball, is a prophet of God, yet learns he to pray by praying.”(18)

We must be patient and persistent in improving our prayers. I have also learned this divinely important principle. The Lord teaches us–he gives to us– as Isaiah, Nephi, and  Joseph Smith each taught, “line upon line, precept, upon precept, here a little, and there a little....”(19) I believe the things which God has to teach us about prayer are inexhaustible from a mortal perspective!  

I invite you to take more seriously and be more intentional in improving your prayers. I commend the idea of preparing your own binder on prayer to help you improve them. One of my prized files of quotations is about what to pray for. It is not surprising that the living prophets and apostles are constantly teaching and giving directions about how to pray and what to pray for. Many of those are about ongoing issues and needs. May I suggest in all seriousness, that it is almost mandatory that we keep such a collection of quotations in order to remember it all, and to keep abreast of the latest directions about what to pray for!

For example, out of a 57-page file of quotations on the topic, I share just a few interesting things our leaders have taught and invited us to pray for or about:  Joseph Smith:  “... brethren seek to know God in your closets....”(20)  Sister Michelle Craig: “Open my eyes to see things I might not normally see.”(21)  Elder Klebingat: “Pray that you will never experience indifference or resignation regarding personal doctrinal blind spots....”(22)  Pres. John Taylor:  “Pray for the revelations of God, ... that we may ... understand the laws of life....”(23)  Psalm 119:18 contains this wonderfully eloquent one-line prayer: “Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.”  

Who among us knows and understands, or ever will know and understand, the atoning mission of the Savior so well that we could not use His help to gain a more “enlightened understanding”?(24)  

President Nelson promised: “As you ponder and pray about doctrinal principles... new insights will come and principles relevant to your situation will distill upon your heart.”(25)   Pres. Eyring: “Tell [God] how much you want what it is that he wants so much to give you.”(26) And Elder Bruce McConkie taught “...James urges us to ask for wisdom which in principle means we should seek all of the attributes of godliness.”(27) In that spirit, Elder Christofferson said, “...ask Him to bestow upon you the pure love of Christ.”(28) He was repeating Mormon’s instructions in Moroni 7:48. Incidentally, in Moroni 8:26 Mormon adds, “which love endureth by diligence unto prayer....”(29)

Thirdly, and very briefly, I encourage and invite you to systematically study what the scriptures have to teach you about prayer. Here are just two of the many examples of principles and doctrines I cherish from my study. They highlight the importance and significance of prayer.  D&C 101:7-8:  They were slow to hearken unto the voice of the Lord their God; therefore, the Lord their God is slow to hearken unto their prayers, to answer them in the day of their trouble. 8) In the day of their peace they esteemed lightly my counsel; but, in the day of their trouble, of necessity they feel after me.” The principle is: “If we go before the Lord in prayer on a consistent basis, He will be there when we urgently need Him.”(30)  

If you want to have your socks knocked of about casual, perfunctory, mind-wandering, sleepy, inattentive prayer, read Moroni 7:6-10, particularly verse 9. Moroni is quoting his father Mormon:  “And likewise also is it counted evil unto a man, if he shall pray and not with real intent of heart; yea, and it profiteth him nothing, for God receiveth none such.” The book of Ether uses the same word evil in speaking of the Brother of Jared after the Lord chastised him for three hours for “remembering not to call upon God.” (Ether 2:14) Ether 2:15 reads in part: “And the brother of Jared repented of the evil which he had done, and did call upon the name of the Lord....” If it is a commandment to pray, and we don’t do it, our disobedience is a sin of some level of rebellion, and is therefore evil in the eyes of God.

One final example. One of the easiest ways to get an answer to prayer is to ask for the fulfillment of one of God’s numerous promises to you.  Here is a precious  promise from God about prayer found in  D&C 19:38: “Pray always, and I will pour out my Spirit upon you, and great shall be your blessing—yea, even more than if you should obtain treasures of earth ....” [Emphasis added.]

I leave with you my testimony, humbly and sincerely. Through this experience in the last six months and more, like Enos, I have spent the whole day in prayer.  In my case not all at one time, but  at ½ hour, 3/4 hour or an hour at a time, sometimes more–for days and days upon end-for many months. I have repeatedly invited him to teach me how to pray and he has been doing so line upon line, and precept upon precept. I thank God for my closet–to me it is the forest wilderness of Enos and the mountain top of Moses and Nephi.  I thank him for these exhilarating and peak spiritual experiences.  

I pray I have enlightened you, edified you, challenged you, and most of all motivated you regarding your own spiritual quest and prayers, in the name of Jesus Christ.  

Notes:

1.  Brevity: In most cases I make a point and/or state a principle without further elaboration, trusting a RM from CRM can follow through with your own further elaboration!

2.  Vince Lombardi, in, Glenn Van Ekeren, Speaker's Sourcebook II, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1994, 142.

3.  Here are a representative few: Moses 5:1, 4-8, the first commandment of God to Adam  and Eve outside the Garden was to worship and pray.  It is still in effect.  Lk. 18:1; 1 Thess. 5:17-18; 2 Ne. 32:9; Mos. 18:23; 3 Ne. 18:15, 18-21; D&C 19:28.

4.  See: Marion G. Romney, “Maintaining Spirituality,” Ensign (November 1979):16;  Joseph B. Wirthlin, “Improving Our Prayers,” in Brigham Young University 2002-2003 Speeches, Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 2003, 159.

5.  The first overt statement about the command to pray to catch my attention comes from Sara Lee Gibb, “Prayer, the Divine Connection,” BYU-Idaho devotional, 1 November 2005, 5.

Available online at: 

https://video.byui.edu/media/Sara+Lee+Gibb+%22Prayer%2C+the+Divine+Connection%22/0_9h1l7mfw   Accessed 23 September 2024.

6.  D&C 34:3; 138:3-4; see also,  Rudger Clawson, Conference Report, October 1921, 36;  Hugh B. Brown, Conference Report, April 1962, 108, or “Are the Latter-day Saints Christian?” The Improvement Era (June 1962):409;  Ezra Taft Benson, Come Unto Christ, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1983,76; Neal A. Maxwell, “‘O How Great the Plan of Our God!’ (2 Ne. 9:13),” address to CES Religious Educators, 3 February 1995; Jeffrey R. Holland, “‘Therefore, What?’” address to the CES New Testament conference at BYU, 8 August 2000, 9; Neal A. Maxwell, “Testifying of the Great and Glorious Atonement,” Ensign (October 2001):14, 15;  M. Russell Ballard, “The Atonement and the Value of One Soul,” Ensign (May 2004):84, 85; Merrill J. Bateman, “Lessons from the Atonement,” in Richard Neitzel Holzapfel and Kent P. Jackson, eds., To Save the Lost: An Easter Celebration, Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2009, 5;  Jeffrey R. Holland,  “Leading as the Savior Would Lead,” interview as part of the Leadership Enrichment Series, conduced by the HR Department of the Church, Ralph Christensen interviewer, 9 November 2011, 10;  Jeffrey R. Holland, “The Laborers in the Vineyard,” Ensign or Liahona (May 2012):33;  Quentin L. Cook, “The Lord Is My Light,” Ensign (May 2015):66; M. Russell Ballard, “The Greatest Generation of Young Adults,” Ensign (May 2015):70; Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “The Gift of Grace,” Ensign (May 2015):107; Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “Behold the Man!” Ensign (May 2018):107-108;  Russell M. Nelson, “Jesus Christ is Your Savior,” For the Strength of Youth, (April 2022), internet edition, no pagination; Alan T. Phillips, “God Knows and Loves You,” Liahona (November 2023):50; Jeffrey R. Holland, “The Garment of the Holy Priesthood,” Liahona (September 2024):7.

7.  Spencer W. Kimball, “Prayer,” The New Era (March 1978):14-15.

8.  Several leaders have remarked about this in their talks, but I particularly recommend the comments of F. Enzio Busche, in his 2 June 1981, devotional at BYU entitled, “‘This is Life Eternal.”  This is a great talk for several other reasons, particularly his elaboration on the title which comes from John 17:3.

9.  Ezra T. Benson, “Improving Communication with Our Heavenly Father,” in Prayer, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1977, 110-15, and Joseph B.  Wirthlin, “Improving Our Prayers,” in Brigham Young University 2002-2003 Speeches, Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 2003, 159-66. 

10.  Neal A. Maxwell, All These Things Shall Give Thee Experience, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1980, 91, emphasis added.

11.  Ezra T.  Benson, “Prayer,” Ensign (May 1977):34, emphasis added.

12.  Russell M. Nelson, “The Price of Priesthood Power,” Ensign (May 2016):68; Keith B. McMullin, “New Testament Words of Jesus: Prayer,” Ensign (January 2003):48.

13.  Jacob 3:1 as only one example.

14.  Enos 1:4, among others.

15.  James 5:16.

16.  Moroni 7:48.

17.  J. Richard Clarke, “The Gift that Matters Most,” in Brigham Young University 1981-82 Fireside and Devotional Speeches, Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 1982, 59.

18.  Marvin J. Ashton, “A Time of Urgency,” Ensign (May 1974):36-37, emphasis added.

19.  See, Isaiah 28:10, 13; 2 Nephi 28: 30; and D&C 98:12.  This version is from D&C 128: 21.

20.  Joseph Smith, “The Holy Ghost,” editorial in Times and Seasons 3, no. 16 (15 June 1842):825; also in HC 5:30-31.

21.  Michelle D. Craig, “Eyes to See,” Ensign (November 2020):16.

22.  Jorg Klebingat, “Defending the Faith,” Ensign (September 2017):53.

23.  John Taylor, cited in Neal A. Maxwell, Wherefore, Ye Must Press Forward, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1977, 122-23.

24.  The phrase comes from, George W. Pace, “Roadblocks to Prayer, The Instructor (September 1968):361.

25.  Russell M. Nelson, “Living by Scriptural Guidance,” Ensign (November 2000):17-18.

26.  Henry B. Eyring, “The Family,” Brigham Young University 1995-96 Speeches, Provo: BYU Publications & Graphics, 1996, 65.

27.  Bruce R. McConkie, “Why the Lord Ordained Prayer,” Ensign (January 1976):7-12.  Also in, Prayer, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1978, 10. I believe this is a most profound statement--connecting the development of the attributes of Christ with wisdom and one worth our serious study and contemplation!

28.  D. Todd Christofferson, “When Thou Art Converted,” Ensign (May 2004):12.

29.   Emphasis added.  This suggests to me that the gift of charity is not necessarily permanent, or at least not always evident in our lives, but it "endures" or remains with us "by diligence unto prayer"--constantly asking to keep it active and alive is us.  To me this is a wonderful and profound insight which must be connected to the exhortation to seek the gift of charity found in Moroni 7:48.

30.  Cheryl C. Lant,  “Prayer,” in Brigham Young University Speeches 2007-2008, Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 2008, 130-1.

Evidence Seventy-Six: The Book of Mormon and the Israelite Tradition of Blessing God After a Meal©

101 Reasons Why I Believe Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God.

Evidence Seventy-Six:  

The Book of Mormon and the Israelite Tradition of Blessing God After a Meal© 

There is an interesting Israelite and Jewish tradition of blessing the Lord and others after eating a meal.  Deuteronomy 8:10 instructs the Children of Israel, “When thou hast eaten and art full, then thou shall bless the Lord thy God for the good land which he hath given thee.” The issue is the Lord does not want Israel to forget the source of their blessings as is stated in Deuteronomy 6:10-12. In verses 10 and 11 the Lord says he is going to give the Israelites a land full of good things which they did not produce and concludes with the injunction “when thou shalt have eaten and be full; then beware lest thou forget the Lord, which brought thee” from Egyptian bondage. A similar sentiment, phrased in the negative is found in Deuteronomy 31:20 where Israel is describe as having eaten, were filled, and “waxen fat,” but then “turn to other gods, and serve them.”  

David Bokovoy and John Tvedenes tell us that all of this later became a Jewish practice of reciting a series of blessings after a meal is known as the birkat ha-mazon, four blessings after eating bread or other blessings on other foods.(1)The same kind of observance is found in a poem in the Dead Sea Scroll collection of poems in a Qumran hymnal designated by Theodore Gaster as an “Invitation to Grace After Meals.”(2) It is also noted in several passages of the mystical tradition of the Zohar.(3)  Bokovoy and Tvedtness tell us all of this tradition of blessing after meals relates to the account in the Old Testament when Esau sells his birthright. Isaac prepares to bless Esau but it can only be offered after Esau fills Isaac’s request for him to prepare his favorite savory dish. “[M]ake me savoury meat, such as I love, and bring it to me, that I may eat; that my soul may bless thee before I die.” (Gen. 27:4: compare the same sequence in Rebekah’s instructions to Esau in Gen. 27:7.) Jack Welch tells us even the early Christian document Didache, stipulated prayer “after being filled” during communion.(4)

So, it is extremely interesting against this Jewish/early Christian background, to learn that at least two passages in the Book of Mormon contain the same ancient idea! This Israelite tradition of offering a blessing or giving a blessing after meals is found in Alma 8:22, which reads:

And it came to pass that Alma ate bread and was filled; and he blessed Amulek and his house, and he gave thanks unto God. (Emphasis mine.)

Tough it is not an exact match with the provision of Deuteronomy 8:10 to bless the Lord for the good of the land; as Bokovoy and Tvedtness note, “the context of Deuteronomy 8:10 is gratitude to God....”(5) I would add that it is an argument of silence to say Alma did not bless God for the good of the land. We do not know what he said in that prayer of thanks, but obviously Alma, in a spirit of gratitude, remembers the source of his blessings as he blesses Amulek and expresses “thanks unto God.” Subtle though this passage is, so subtle, in fact, it is easy to pass over the sequential implications of it, one must ask how Joseph Smith continues to come up with these “zingers” which reflect ancient customs, of which he was likely unaware, as often as he does?

Another account is as equally likely to be passed by without notice. 3 Nephi 18:8-18 recounts Jesus giving the sacrament of bread and wine to the Nephites “and they were filled” (3 Ne. 18:9.) In 3 Nephi 20:9 a similar thing happens again with a twist.  

Now, when the multitude had all eaten and drunk, behold, they were filled with the Spirit; and they did cry out with one voice, and gave glory to Jesus, whom they both saw and heard.

It really wouldn’t be right, if Hugh Nibley didn’t weigh in on this subject. In an essay, “Christ Among the Ruins,” he shows parallels between the Coptic document the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles and the Book of Mormon. Parallel to 3 Nephi 20:9, he finds the following in the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles:

And straightway his word came to pass in exousia [authority, as requested].  His blessing fell upon [shope] the bread in the apostle’s hands.

And all the people ate and were filled.  They gave praise to God.(6)

It is important to note that the Deuteronomy provision in 8:10 is that the blessing follows having eaten and “art full” as in the Didache and Gospel of the Twelve Apostles. In each of the Book of Mormon cases, this same language attends the prayer. Alma ate bread and “was filled”; and when the Nephites first partook of the sacrament they “were filled,” and the second time “they were filled with the Spirit.” It seems more intentional than chance that this important phrase, stipulated in Deuteronomy, is explicitly mentioned in the relevant Book of Mormon passages.(7)

How did the New York farm boy do this?  Was he among the luckiest of farm hands when he decided to write a book to deceive the world, or is his statement that it was translated by the gift and power of God, the best explanation?

Thank God for Joseph Smith and the little “zingers” that fairly surfeit the Book of Mormon text as evidences that it came from God.

Lets think together again, soon.

Notes:

1.  David E. Bokovoy and John A. Tvedtnes, Testaments: Links between the Book of Mormon and the Hebrew Bible, Tooele UT: Heritage Distribution, 2003, 161.

2.  Theodore H. Gaster, The Dead Sea Scriptures, 3rd ed., Garden City N.Y.: Doubleday, 1976, 219-21, see especially stanzas 13-14, title emphasis mine.

3.  John W. Welch, “From Presence to Practice: Jesus, the Sacrament Prayers, the Priesthood, and Church Discipline in 3 Nephi 18 and Moroni 2-6,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 5, n. 1 (1996):134.

4.  Harry Sperling, Maurice Simon, and Paul P. Levertoff, The Zohar, New York: Bennet, 1958, 2:364.

5.  Bokovy and Tvedtness, Testaments, 163.

6.  Hugh W. Nibley, The Prophetic Book of Mormon, John W. Welch, ed., Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1989, 421, bold emphasis mine.  I believe this is Nibley's translation of the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles.

7.  As is so often the case, there was a rabbinical debate over what it took to “be filled.”  See Bokovoy and Tvedtness, Testaments, 162 and accompanying notes.

“Former President Turns Bible Huckster”©

This ought to actually turn your stomach–Donald Trump’s hypocritical and blasphemous peddling of $60.00 Bibles, in a last-minute before Easter attempt to grab some more cash from his cult followers!  In the marketing video Trump said “All Americans need a Bible in their home, and I have many. It’s my favorite book!” If you believe the last statement, I have some land in Florida that is for sale to you cheap! But, if it is his “favorite book,” he shows absolutely no sign of having learned anything from it. (As an example, see the previous blog entry.)  His huckstering video comes in the same week the judge set a date for his trial to pay off a porn star with whom he had a sexual affair, to prevent her from revealing the details before the 2016 election. The irony is that the former President does not even recognize the irony of how phony this really is. The absolute and monumental hypocrisy could not be more apparent!  His cute little slogan, “Make America pray again” added insult to injury.  Would that DJT would pray for guidance as we know Washington and Lincoln did.  Despite his assertions otherwise, Trump cannot hold a matchstick to either of them. Yet a score or more millions of people want this man as a hero and exemplar for their children and grandchildren. Astonishing!  Coming out of the mouth of the most corrupt President in the history of the United States, this also amounts to blasphemy–huckstering in the name of God and his Holy Son!

Huckestering?  You bet.  Just this week the Washington Post called attention to the “fine print” attached to Trump’s recent fund raising pitches which indicate to the unsuspecting who don’t or can’t read the fine print, that a significant chunk of the proceeds goes first to an organization that is paying a significant part of his legal bills.  In this case, the Bible, the attentive viewer will note, is not being sold by Trump for Trump ostensibly, but his “name, likeness and image” are used under paid license from CIC Ventures LLC” which is the same group that is associated with his $400 dollar “Never Surrender” sneakers.(1)  You can be sure the man is not advertising this Bible for sale out of the goodness of his black heart. The only reason he is doing this is because there is money to be made for him.

Hypocrisy! Blasphemy! His recent campaigns are an ongoing downward spiral revealing ever more how low this man can and will go! I’ve always been a “Never Trumper” and in view of the ever-growing evidence of his absolute characterlessness, corruption, and ambition, I am proud to say that.  I encourage you to join me in not only not voting for him, but doing what you can, like this blog, to resist this wannabe dictator.

Let’s think together again, soon.

Notes:

1.  “CIC Ventures LLC — the limited liability company mentioned at the end of the answer — is listed in Trump's 2023 financial disclosures with him as its manager, president, secretary and treasurer, as The Washington Post reported. The same company is also listed at the bottom of the website for Trump's sneaker deal he announced in February 2024 and is associated with other products he previously endorsed, the Post also reported.”

Jordan Liles, “Fact Check: How Trump Is Profiting from Endorsement of Bibles Costing $59.99 Each, According to the God Bless the USA Bible Company,” Snopes Website, 28 March 2024, available online at:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/fact-check-how-trump-is-profiting-from-endorsement-of-bibles-costing-59-99-each-according-to-the-god-bless-the-usa-bible-company/ar-BB1kHSJR

See also:

Amy B. Wang and Marianne LeVine, “Trump has sold $59 Bibles, $399 sneakers and more since leaving office,” The Washington Post, 27 March 2024.

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/27/trump-selling-bibles-sneakers/

"ABC World News Tonight with David Muir Full Broadcast." YouTube, ABC News, 26 Mar. 2024, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_wDQiEluJ4.

Bump, Philip. "Analysis | An All-American Bible — with a Cut of the Sales Going to Trump." Washington Post, 26 Mar. 2024, 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/26/trump-bible-sales-money/.

Colvin, Jill. "Trump Is Selling 'God Bless the USA' Bibles for $59.99 as He Faces Mounting Legal Bills." The Associated Press, 26 Mar. 2024, 

https://apnews.com/article/trump-god-bless-usa-bible-greenwood-2713fda3efdfa297d0f024efb1ca3003.

An Unintended but “Spot On” Commentary on Donald Trump’s Propensity of Name Calling and Labeling by an Important Religious Leader

[DWB Introduction: The following comments by Russell M. Nelson were made long before Donald Trump appeared on the political scene, so, of course, they were not directed to him.  Nevertheless, the timeless truths of the Gospel apply to all people at all times.]

"Unfortunately, our modern society is caught up in divisive disputation. Often unkind nicknames are added to—or even substituted for—given names. Labels are invented to foster feelings of segregation and competition. For example, athletic teams acquire names to intimidate others, such as “Giants,” “Tigers,” “Warriors,” and so on. Harmless you say? Well, perhaps not overly important. But that is only the beginning. More serious separation results when offensive labels are utilized with the intent to demean.

Even worse, such terms camouflage our true identity as sons and daughters of God. The desire of my heart is that we might rise above such worldly trends. God wants us to ascend to the highest level of our potential. He employs names that unify and sanctify. He gave a new name to Abraham’s grandson Jacob, saying, “Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men.” In Hebrew, the term Yisra’el means “God prevails.” Jacob was given a name to match his divine destiny.

When we embrace the gospel and are baptized, we are born again. We take upon ourselves the sacred name of Jesus Christ. We become as his sons and daughters and are known as brothers and sisters. We become members of his family; he is the Father of our new life.

...

When we know who we are and what God expects of us, we are filled with hope and made aware of our significant role in his great plan of happiness.

... Our faithful Latter-day Saints are filled with hope and motivated by love of the Lord Jesus Christ. With that hope, we assiduously avoid labels that could be interpreted as derogatory. When the Nephites were truly righteous, their previous patterns of polarization vanished. “There was no contention in the land, because of the love of God which did dwell in the hearts of the people. …

“There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God.

“And how blessed were they!”

Unfortunately, the sequel to that story is not a happy one. This pleasant circumstance persisted until “a small part of the people … had revolted … and taken upon them the name of Lamanites,” reviving old prejudices and teaching their children again to hate, “even as the Lamanites were taught to hate the children of Nephi from the beginning.” And so the polarizing process began all over again.

I hope that we may learn this important lesson and delete segregating names from our personal vocabularies. The Apostle Paul taught that “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Our Savior invites us “to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God.”(1)

Let’s think together again, soon.

Notes:

1.  Russell M. Nelson, “‘A More Excellent Hope,’” Ensign (February 1997):62-3, emphasis by DWB.