All Activity

A scale for ranking men's swimsuits.

I've never been fussy about whether to use s or z in words like "organize". Personally I like it better with the Z, but some publishers with fussy editors will change it back to S. We write "aluminium" the same way we say it - with five syllables, not four. As for words like "meter" and "color", those were the usual British spellings at the time the Americans left. It was the British spellings that changed. Are we French? Certainly not! But some time in the 19th Century, after many centuries of fighting the French (Crecy, Agincourt, Waterloo, Trafalgar...), we suddenly decided we liked them after all and even started spelling some of our words their way! Strangely "meter" is spelled the American way when it's referring to a measuring instrument (like a speedometer), but "metre" when it's a unit of length. I totally love Alison Krauss. Totally and utterly. And I want to have her babies!

What!!? I worked for them in the last half of the 90s! How is it I don't recognize your real name!? I was once helping one of the PMs with a Windows problem and was 3 dialogs deep before I realized I couldn't read the OS language! I coded some of the internal databases, and did all the Lotus Notes projects. Started at the old building on 700E. Got fired with everyone else when Singapore took over and fired all the Mormons.

Dear Sir: I will begin by introducing myself. I am a retired engineer and scientist. I have difficulty with much of the social graces but am expert in what was my field and concluded my working career as a consultant in the field of industrial automation, robotics and artificial intelligence. I mean no disrespect, but I have experienced and lot of untruthfulness in the religious community – especially towards my field of the sciences and my religious devotions and covenants as a disciple of Christ through the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The vast majority of scientists (especially those with whom I have worked) were raised as traditional (or creedal) Christians but have found the traditional Christian community so inwardly contradictory that they are convinced that the trinity G-d is not real or even possible. I am among them – without the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I would not align with any Christian sect but would declare myself an atheist. Let’s us begin with the error in the contradictory term of what is Biblical. This is a term full of misdirection’s and misunderstandings. The Bible itself and all the books that make up what is called the Bible is itself not Biblical. There is no Biblical scripture that designates that there should be a Bible or what books it should and should not contain. In fact, in the Book of Amos chapter 3 verse 7 we are told explicitly that G-d will reveal everything he does through his prophets. There was not one prophet among those that have determined what now is Biblical scripture. There are also errors introduced in attempts to translate Biblical scripture. In some cases, there is no English term or phrase that will properly represent terms used in ancient scripture text. One such ancient term is Kippur. William Tyndale made up the word “atonement” and for that effort (among others) he was burned at the stake by the Christian authorities of his day. Even in today’s world English speaking Christians make up whatever they want to be attached to what “atonement” means to them. In other cases, we introduce concepts that were never a part of the ancient prophets or the society from which they wrote scripture. One such example is the notion of infinite (∞). To say anything of G-d is infinite, it is nothing but a made-up notion from our modern era. And even then, sadly it is a notion that is made in error. ∞ is a theorical concept developed to solve certain unsolvable paradoxes in mathematical theory. It was developed to repress something that is not real and does not exist. ∞ is not a number and is not subject to real number theory binary operations To those of us that are familiar with the mathematical construct of ∞, it surprises us when the religious community says that anything of G-d is infinite. This communicates two possibilities. First that G-d does not exist beyond a man-made theoretical concept and two, that those using this term in such ignorance really do not know what they are talking about. How on earth can a meaningful discussion take place? One last concern. In all my life I have never heard any LDS authority, nor have I encountered any scripture that indicates that anyone “earns” their salvation. Whoever provided you with that information, did so in error. Most likely to deceive you about a great many things. Allow me to explain. Through Christ (kapur – atonement) is sin remitted freely for everyone, and salvation and forgiveness given. Jesus spoke directly of this but also indicated that there are eyes that do not see and ears that do not hear the words and glory of G-d. What must be earned by worthiness through spiritual covenant is the ability to see and hear the things of G-d. We are all judged according to our works. There are no scriptures that indicate otherwise. The works that are good are justly rewarded and the works that are evil are justly condemned (punished) – This is because G-d is a just G-d. In case you do not understand – repentance is a good work made only available through Christ and the only way to be born again as a creature that abhors sin. The Traveler

From John Chapter 1: “And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” The phrase “grace for grace” shows that we receive of His fulness which He already gave, unconditionally, without merit on our part, and before the foundation of the world, but in a stepwise, increasing fashion according to our faith. The verse from Ether 12:4 shows that good works are a product or faith and hope, a function of being sure and steadfast, led to glorify God, and no other motive. I think loving parents become more joyful with each new child, and God is the same. God is complete, and so becomes more joyful, glorious, etc. as an outgrowth of who He is, giving and giving and giving life, breath and everything without diminishment or weariness. Jesus is the perfect example with His atonement and crucifixion answered by His resurrection and ascension. I see it perfectly consistent that God's unchanging nature is to increase His creations and by extension His joy and glory.

That should take care of it. I would check with the ward finance clerk after the first month and make sure the payment was received correctly.

Whoa. I knew there was a reason I liked you zil! In the '90's I worked for Alpnet in Salt Lake, there on Highland Drive. I used to be able to tell the difference between simplified and traditional Chinese. I could tell when one translator stopped and a different one started. I remember when DTP became EP.

I asked my Austrian friend why they sometimes use this character and why they sometimes change it to "ss". The answer was interesting, should anyone wish to read.

Sometimes I confuse myself, so if it’s dizzying for you too, I’m in good company!

Yes, there's a lot of both. We get a hurricaine almost every year in Houston. So, when we hear we're going to see "yet another" hurricaine, we just don't worry too much. Yes, it was a hurriciane. Yes, we make some reasonable precautions. But I don't know if we ever take the care and concern we really ought to. Yes, ... it was.

Thanks for your honesty and for keeping this conversation respectful—I really do appreciate that. I understand that we’ve reached a place where our views differ significantly, and that’s okay. My goal here hasn’t been to prove who’s right or wrong, but simply to share my experience and perspective in a spirit of openness and mutual respect. I recognize the depth and sincerity in your convictions, just as I hope you can see mine. Sometimes faith journeys look different, and dialogue like this can be hard because it touches on deeply held beliefs and experiences. If nothing else, I hope this exchange helps us both reflect more deeply and continue growing in grace and understanding—whatever that looks like for each of us. Thanks again for your kindness and candor. I wish you the very best as well.

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

Alas, my keyboard doesn't have a numpad, and a USB 10-key numpad won't do this (presumably because it doesn't have the alt key on it). I could break out my Gateway 2000 124-key AnyKey programmable keyboard1, but it's huge and I prefer my desk to have free space for writing. But I do break it out now and then, when the programming feature will save me a lot of time. 1The greatest keyboard known to man. Whoever decided to discontinue it will receive extra punishment in the next life, I'm sure. (I broke it out type this post and now I miss typing with it even more. I may have to get a new desk with a keyboard tray just so I can start using it again - it's magnificent. :swoon: Technically, I have four five of these, but only 1 2 works, I think - the others need work.) I used to have the alt codes for Spanish, French, Italian, Portuguese, and German characters memorized - back when I worked for a software localization company. Ah, the good old days.

Thank you for sharing these important reminders about righteousness, perseverance, and the call to overcome the natural man. The emphasis on seeking, knocking, and enduring to the end is certainly foundational in many scriptural teachings. I do agree that our faith is meant to be active, and that works are an expression of that faith. The parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14–30) highlights the responsibility to steward well what we’ve been given. At the same time, I believe it’s crucial to remember that grace is not opposed to works but empowers them. Without grace, our efforts fall short; with grace, our works are the fruit of a transformed heart. Ephesians 2:8–10 captures this tension well: we are saved by grace through faith, not by works, but created in Christ Jesus to do good works. So while righteousness and perseverance matter deeply, they flow out of the grace that first reaches us, not the other way around. This balance keeps us from sliding into a works-based mindset that can burden us with fear or performance rather than inviting us into relationship with God. Thanks again for raising these challenging and vital truths. It’s a conversation worth having.

And if you wanna do a cool sunglass-wearing face, it's alt-0223. ß-)

With all due respect, in my opinion, the replies you've given are either flat out wrong about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the teachings thereof, wrong about biblical teachings, wrong about what it means to be transactional, wrong about what grace is or means, and logically inconsistent. But...saying any more would simply be useless arguing. You're clearly a nice guy who's making great efforts to be extremely civil. Digging into the details of how how I think you're wrong would likely breach that pretty quickly. So I'll leave off. Clearly, if you feel the Spirit has led you to a truth that I believe is false and vice versa, then an impasse exists. I'm not sure what your objective is here. (Perhaps that's been stated elsewhere in the thread.) But whatever it is, it doesn't seem to be to learn, and you certainly won't persuade me I'm in the wrong. So..., you know...thanks for the civility. I wish you the best.

You’ve officially leveled up the joy of my reading experience. Thank you for the gift! 😃 Keyboard shortcuts for the em dash are as follows: Windows: Hold the Alt key and type 0151 on the numeric keypad Mac: Press Option + Shift + Minus (–)

God does favour the righteous, and no unclean vessels can enter the kingdom of God. We have to overcome the word and the natural man. The most repeated scripture in all texts is seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be opened. The old argument of grace vs works hidden in a plethora of religious confusion. Grace alone does not save anyone.... yes confess Christ, baptism and endure to the end. Our eternal blessings are dependent on our righteousness. Kingdom of heaven in the parable of talents, we have to work and increase, else even that which we had is taken from us. Matthew 25:14-38

Little girls washed away overnight while attending a Christian youth camp of some kind. That's sort of the main thing I've been dwelling on. My daughters went to their share of young women's camps. Including ones where I had written them letters to be read after they had gone off into the woods to pray and think about spiritual things. I just can't get past how horrible this tragedy is. There are always folks willing to use a tragedy to score political points. I'm occasionally one of them. But oof - this one hurts.

Thanks for taking the time to respond—especially with such a heartfelt and reflective tone. I can tell you're trying to engage this question sincerely, and I really appreciate that. I want to say upfront that I don’t take offense at the idea that I might have misunderstood something; I’m fully aware that LDS teachings around glory, exaltation, and progression are rich, layered, and sometimes hard to pin down even within the Church itself. My intent in sharing wasn’t to caricature or oversimplify, but to process how I experienced and internalized the doctrine, and to raise what I still see as a significant theological tension. You’re right to point out that “glory” in LDS thought isn’t necessarily synonymous with “worth” or “value” in the worldly sense. And I agree—it would be absurd to suggest that God becomes more divine or more worthy the more children He has, just as a man doesn’t become more human by becoming a father. That’s a helpful analogy. But here’s where I still see the disconnect: Even if we frame glory in terms of joy, blessing, or the manifestation of God’s works, we’re still talking about something that grows or expands in relation to our actions. And that’s precisely what I’m trying to wrestle with. If God’s joy—or glory, or satisfaction—increases as more of His children are exalted, then we’ve introduced a kind of dependency into God’s nature. He may still be omnipotent and omniscient, yes, but His joy (or glory) is now, at least in part, responsive to us. That’s a very different view from the classical Christian understanding of God as complete and unchanging in His glory and joy—perfect in Himself, and lacking nothing. Of course, that doesn’t mean God is emotionally distant. The Bible speaks of a God who delights in His people, who rejoices over repentance, who loves deeply and pursues personally (Zephaniah 3:17, Luke 15:7). But Scripture also teaches that God is immutable—that His nature does not change (Malachi 3:6; James 1:17). So while His expressions of joy may be real and relational, they aren’t the result of some deficiency being filled. He doesn’t become more joyful when He has 8 billion children instead of 1. His love and delight are infinite—perfectly full from eternity—and not something that scales with numbers or effort. He is the great “I AM”—the unchanging, ever-present embodiment of love, light, and all things good. His joy in us is real, but it flows from His completeness, not from a need. We, on the other hand, do experience joy in limited and fluctuating ways. A parent may feel more happiness as their children thrive or more sorrow when they rebel. But God isn’t subject to the same emotional limitations. He can rejoice over each sinner who repents without needing that repentance to “complete” His joy. His delight in us is real, but it flows from His completeness, not from a need. So the tension remains: If exaltation is part of God’s “work and glory,” and if that work includes creating beings who will themselves become gods, then it still seems to frame His glory as increasing—even if we redefine “glory” to mean joy, influence, or posterity. I’m not trying to nitpick terminology. I really do think this is a meaningful difference that affects how we see God—and how we understand grace. Because if God’s joy or glory expands because of my righteousness, then I bear part of the weight of sustaining His joy or fulfilling His purposes. And that moves us out of a grace-first framework into something much more performance-based, even if it’s surrounded by good intentions. That’s why, for me, coming to see God’s glory as unchanging—and His love as fully given, not transactionally received—was such a freeing and life-changing shift. Again, I’m not questioning your sincerity or your relationship with God. I just think it’s worth wrestling with what it means for God to be complete in Himself—and what it says about grace if we believe He gains something essential from us. Thanks again for the thoughtful dialogue. These conversations aren’t always easy, but I think they’re incredibly valuable.

Despite everyone talking about how awful the "main stream media" are, they don't change a thing. If anything, they stick their tongues out and get worse. It has been my observation that the weather forecasting folks — the ones on TV / the internet that people watch1 — like to hype every possible drop of rain into a "potential hurricane". After a billion "that wasn't a hurricane"s, folks stop paying attention - boy who cried wolf, and all that. Maybe if they'd quit getting excited about less worrisome weather, people would take them more seriously when the actual dangers are inbound... (Or maybe not. "It can't happen to me" is just as real as the boy who cried wolf.) Regardless, it was a tragedy. So sad for the people involved. 1as opposed to scientists who sit in rooms somewhere, reading instrumentation and issue dry-sounding, data-based forecasts as text that shows up on ugly-looking websites NOTE: As a gift to @NeuroTypical and @fiddle tenders, I have gone to the bother of adding em dashes to this post. (For those who are looking, it's U+2014.)

Yes, I often point out that the atonement of Christ was set before the foundation of the world and all else hinges on him as the Father's Gift to all ("Before Abraham was I, Jehovah). I was just reading an interesting chapter this morning, Ether 12. I mentioned earlier that Jesus never used the word or taught it, but in Ether 12 He does. But first, we see in verse 4, "Wherefore, whoso believeth in God might with surety hope for a better world, yea, even a place at the right hand of God, which hope cometh of faith, maketh an anchor to the souls of men, which would make them sure and steadfast, always abounding in good works, being led to glorify God." But the verses that follow show that it is Christ that does the work of the Father when men exercise faith in Him, not the men, who can do nothing good without His light. Verses 26 - 28 show how the Lord applies His grace: "...the Lord spake unto me, saying: Fools mock, but they shall mourn; and my grace is sufficient for the meek, that they shall take no advantage of your weakness; And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them. Behold, ...faith, hope and charity bringeth unto me—the fountain of all righteousness. And then the verses that follow these testify of all the work Christ did, not man.

That’s an interesting observation—and I can see how the language of "reflection" could feel limiting if it seems to deny any real transformation or substance in the believer. But I think when many Christians (what you're calling “sectarians”) speak of reflecting God’s light or glory, the emphasis isn’t on denying that we’re changed or that we can shine with real light—it’s about preserving the distinction between Creator and creation. Any light we have is derived, not self-originating. That doesn’t make it fake or meaningless; it just means it points beyond us. Like Jesus said, “Let your light shine before others… so they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven” (Matt. 5:16). The light is real. But its source is not us—it’s Him. And that’s actually what gives it power. The moon’s light is borrowed, but it still lights the night. That doesn’t diminish its beauty or role—it reveals the faithfulness of the sun even in darkness. In a similar way, believers are called to be partakers of divine nature (2 Peter 1:4), but never to possess divinity in the same way God does. So the reflection metaphor isn’t meant to belittle our transformation—it’s meant to safeguard the mystery and majesty of the One we reflect. It’s not that Christians who use the "reflection" metaphor are being stingy, restrictive, or unwilling to acknowledge the real and meaningful transformation believers undergo—what you might call "theological stinginess." Instead, it’s about "theological humility": being careful and reverent in how we speak about the difference between God’s glory and our own, always remembering that whatever light we bear is real, but derived.

Thanks for this—I really appreciate your effort to clarify your use of language, especially around such an abstract and nuanced subject. You're right: our vocabulary often strains under the weight of these theological concepts, and sometimes we end up reusing familiar terms in unfamiliar ways because no better alternatives exist. Your example of “burning in the bosom” is spot on—it’s imprecise, but it gestures toward something real and ineffable. I also see where you're coming from in suggesting that “increase in glory” could be shorthand for something like “expansion of dominion” or “scope of rule,” rather than an augmentation of God’s inherent being or perfection. If that’s all someone means by it, then I agree—it’s more of a semantic distinction than a substantive theological one. But I think where concern still lingers (for me, at least) is that in common LDS discourse, the lines between God’s dominion, offspring, and glory often get blurred in a way that can subtly shift the framework. If God’s glory is thought to increase with the number of spirit children, and those children are seen as part of His exaltation or perfection, then even metaphorical language starts to carry theological weight. And if that's not carefully delineated, it risks implying that God’s glory is not just expressed through creation but somehow dependent on it—which would be a significant departure from classical theism. So yes, maybe it’s ultimately a language problem—but in theology, language problems have a way of turning into doctrinal ones if left unexamined. That’s why I think your careful attention to how words are used—and misused—is so valuable in this kind of conversation.

Thanks for taking the time to write all this out—there’s clearly a lot of conviction and thought behind it. I do agree that following Christ involves effort and surrender, and that our choices matter deeply. Taking up the cross isn’t passive—it’s a costly call to trust and obedience. But I’d push back on the idea that there’s “no such thing as a free gift.” Grace, by definition, is a gift (Romans 5:15–17; Ephesians 2:8–9). That doesn’t mean it’s cheap or that it costs us nothing—it cost Christ everything—but it does mean that salvation isn’t something we earn or trade for through obedience. You mentioned that “we are saved by obedience to covenants” and that “there is no salvation without baptism.” While I understand where that comes from in Latter-day Saint theology, I think that perspective can risk making salvation feel like a transaction—something God gives after we’ve done our part. But in Scripture, we see that even our ability to respond—to have faith, to repent, to obey—is made possible because of grace (Philippians 2:13; John 6:44). Hebrews 5:8 is a beautiful verse that shows Christ’s humanity and suffering, but it’s not about Him “earning” glory through obedience—it’s about His identification with us, His submission to the Father’s will, and the depth of His love. He learned obedience not because He was disobedient, but because He experienced the full weight of suffering in human form. God’s blessings certainly can flow in response to obedience—but if we’re not careful, we’ll begin to view Him more like a vending machine: insert obedience, receive blessing. That’s not a relationship of grace or love—that’s a transaction. Yes, we are invited to grow, to mature, to bear fruit—but not to earn God’s favor. That’s what’s so radical about the gospel: the favor is given first, and our response flows from that love, not to try to obtain it.