Leaderboard

No. No one has a problem with profit-making. People have a problem with conflict of interest, with those who make money from a project also being the decision-makers for what is supposedly the public's best interest.

For one thing the polio vaccine was never made political, there was no evidence that it was man made, was fully transparent to criticism, completed all the trials before being open to the public, was never released to the public as an experiment, there was no known reliable cure and despite all the danger of polio it was never mandated. To my knowledge – no one who had contracted polio and recovered was called a murder if they refused the vaccine. And lastly the eventer was not made a billionaire for his efforts. The Traveler

I just like to point out at times like these, that I participated in the phase III trial for Moderna. Phase 1 was (I believe) done on animals. Phase 2 was done on the healthy fit young humans - tens of thousands of volunteers got the shots (of varying volume, or placebos), and studied for a while. Phase 3 was done on the general public - including old people, people with other health issues, even people with COVID co-morbidities. Again, me and 30,000 other volunteers, of varying ages and health, got shots (or placebos), and then had recurring blood tests, and every cough and hiccup reported and studied. Pregnant or nursing women were excluded, and no testing on kiddos until March '21. My first shot was in August 2020. December 2020 had the FDA concluding things about safety and effectiveness. Canada, Israel, Singapore, then the WHO, Japan, India, Malaysia, Europe, Australia all approved things shortly after. 99% of the organizations and nations who studied the thing, all agreed with the approval and release. They released it to the public in December. Since supplies were limited, they started with our elders in nursing homes - those at highest risk. These folks accounted for like 80% of the covid deaths, so they got shots first. This is what "rushed through testing" looks like. 5-6 months of testing and data gathering on 30k volunteers. And yes, the word "rushed" applies - usually it takes years. Anyway, perspective is important. It's good to understand what "rushed through testing" looks like. Carry on folks.

One of the biggest and most destructive misinformation (aka lies) that we have been told is when it is called a Covid "vaccine" If they were being honest about it they would be calling it the Covid genetic therapy shot that was rushed through testing. Why do they not give correct information (aka be honest)? Because most people would have understandable concerns about being at the cutting edge of genetic therapy,and not consent to it. But many people do understand how vaccines work (at least in layman's terms). Vaccines have a long and proven history so much that the majority of those that have concerns about vaccines do not have concerns about the effectiveness of the vaccine, but about the possible side effects (Aka those who suspect a link to Autism), or about getting the wrong bug (aka the effectiveness of the yearly flu shot) or they for whatever reason prefer to take their chances of possibly getting sick vs the possibility of a reaction to the vaccine. None of these "Anti Vaxxers" positions deny the effectiveness of vaccines in general So we get lied to. We get told it's a "Vaccine" so they can ride on the trust and familiarity we have toward vaccines to get us to consent to genetic therapy under false pretenses instead. In addition anyone that tries to point this out gets labeled "Anti Vaxxer" "Anti Science" and accused of spreading misinformation. While their massive lies remain unchallenged. It makes no sense to need a "vaccine" after you have already fought off the disease. You do not need a "vaccine" "booster" within weeks of an initial shot. Yet you might need it for genetic therapy treatment, I mean the general public (including me) has no real idea how genetic therapy works... so sure why not. And it is simple Human nature one you know you are being lied to and fed disinformation, to never trust them again. And to look for reasons for the lie. Greed/power grab is almost always the reason

No, you clearly do not get it, thought I don't understand why not. It's an obvious principle: Don't put the fox in charge of the henhouse. For example, Anthony Fauci, chief medical advisor to President Joe Biden and outspoken cheerleader for Covid vaccinations, has been receiving royalties from the pharmaceutical companies that produce the vaccines. Fauci did not deny this, but instead insisted that he had no legal obligation to mention or discuss that fact, so he wouldn't. (Fauci later claimed, without proof, that he had actually donated his profits to charity.) Do you truly not see the inherent conflict of interest and corruption in someone who is financially profiting from a vaccine's usage to work in an official governmental capacity to encourage and, in some cases, require that vaccine's usage?

When there is a direct connection between those mandating the experimental gene therapy and those making money producing the experiment - that is not capitalism - it is cronyism at a foundation of a corrupt government. It is akin (the same kind of thing) to government mandated religion. For a better explanation I recommend the book “Capitalism and Freedom” by the world acclaimed and Nobel prize winning economist, Milton Friedman. The Traveler

I am a fan. It is a breath of fresh air to see Jesus Christ portrayed as having human qualities. I like that they chose to give the apostles personalities. I have no idea if Matthew was autistic. But I like what the actor is doing with the role. I love what they did with Nicodemus. By far - my favorite portrayal of Peter. Just finished Season one.

Utah passed a “free range parenting” law a couple of years ago, and it’s interesting (since I work with DCFS) how often I’ll be reviewing a case with a caseworker, and I’ll tell them that we can’t file a court petition due to the free range parenting statute, and the caseworkers want to argue with me about it. Their hearts are in the right places, but I think modern psychological theory drastically underestimates what kids are capable of.

Went to Wal-Mart earlier today. Managed to score three roasts - 2.15 to 3 pounds - on markdown at $3 off the previous day's price. I pretty much dropped everything to get them. They weren't cheap even with the discount, and I had to forego a few purchases, but meat like that can't be ignored.

I'll admit that I haven't seen the entire series so far. I've seen partial episodes here and there as I happen to come in the room when my family is playing it. I believe my wife has seen the entire series so far. I'm impressed at how disciplined they are to keeping the doctrines as close to the Biblical text as possible. From time-to-time I've noticed some doctrines that are more evangelical than Biblical. But it is minimal. I've liked how they rounded out the characters as human (Jesus included, in some ways). Everyone else is given very human weaknesses, but still fairly "good people". Even the Romans aren't shown to be monolithic. They have varying levels of "niceness" to the Jews. They added the character "Eden" because we know Peter was married. But his wife is never mentioned in the Biblical narrative. That was a pretty cool addition. It adds to the plot and storyline, even if it is fiction. I didn't like how effeminate they made Matthew. But whatever. The first scene I saw was when Nicodemus was teaching. I'm a fan of Erick Avari. I've seen him in a LOT of films. He has a tremendous range. I felt he was the perfect actor for the role because, although he has fame as an actor, he isn't one to be typecast. And he tends to play Nicodemus in such a manner that you can't pigeon-hole him. And that was what I remember thinking about him when I read about him as a teenager. I couldn't figure what kind of person he was. (FYI: Mr. Avari is East Indian. And I believe his faith is some sect of Zoroastorian.) I've asked my wife why they depicted the Jews as having an accent (a few exceptions). Why would they? Wouldn't they be speaking in their mother tongue? But then I saw a scene with a roman soldier. I first heard his voice when I was looking away from the screen and thought, "That's John de Lancie!" But alas. It was Brandon Potter. Never heard of him. But he spoke with his real life American accent. Then it struck me. The accents put the viewers in the position of the Romans. The Romans speak like us. The Jews are foreigners. I'm wondering why they made that choice in this depiction. Maybe it is to remind us that the Jews were not the people in power at the time. They had to maintain their traditions, their beliefs, their religious observances in the face of being a captive people. That was probably a very difficult thing to do. They certainly add a lot of political intrigue to the narrative. And it seems plausible from my non-historian perspective. I really don't know. But I'm hoping that they spent some time consulting with historians about the Roman treatment of Israel at the time. So far, it seems to be very well done. The storyline is new, despite the well-known narrative. And it makes the plot engaging. The production quality is pretty dang good. Apart from minor things that only film aficionados would notice, you'd hardly know that it was made on a low budget.

BECOME UNGOVERNABLE!!!

Ironically, his “Free to Choose” was life changing for me. if you want, I can give you a list of many, many conservative economic books that changed my life. F2C and FA Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” are my two favorites. You should also read “Why I’m not a conservative” by Hayek and anything by Von Mises.

James and John’s father, at least, was wealthy enough to have multiple fishing boats and hired servants. And I remember a BYU prof of mine saying that Galilean fish were sold as far away as Rome itself. So yeah; the four fishermen apostles were probably about as solidly “middle class” as one could be in first-century Judea.

I am beginning to wonder if these apostles represented the most intelligent and capable people of the age. That's not usually associated with fishermen. But sometimes, very capable people are simply forced into a very mundane role. I remember people talking about the Constitutional Convention. Those were the most intelligent and learned men on the planet. Later, JFK had a White House dinner with (IIRC) a group of Nobel Laureates. He declared that this represented the greatest assortment of minds in the White House at any given moment, except when Thomas Jefferson dined alone. Interesting that TJ was not at the Constitutional Convention. But I remembered thinking that as I looked through the backgrounds of our apostles (past and present) I am amazed to find out that we had a similarly gifted assortment of individual with expertise in different areas, all with different backgrounds. Perhaps they know what they are doing in both a temporal and eternal perspective. Upon reading this quote above, I wonder if the same was true of the ancient apostles. I've been reading the gospels from a more scholarly perspective this time through. And I'm absolutely amazed at the writing quality. The usage of words is mind-blowing. Perhaps they were all savants or at least very gifted. Perhaps it was spiritual enlightenment. It may have simply been talents they were given by the Lord. Perhaps it was the talent of later editors who re-wrote their words. But it is amazing to read.

And what was that "previous lifestyle"? Prostitution? If so, that's a scurrilous lie invented or at least furthered by an ancient Catholic pope.

Declining the Covid flu shot is not anti-vax, yet people continue to promote that idea. They. Are. Idiots.

It is sad to see so many people say that the church has problems with their members who ask questions, and you aren't allowed to ask them...and yet every question is answered by the church. I see no organization as open about their history and addressing the hard topics as our church does. Then, when they don't like the answer given, they say that it isn't true, that things are still being hidden, and they keep asking the same question over and over. Then, those same people have the gall to rake anyone over the coals that dares question the only tried and true covid treatment...the "vaccine". "It is the brazen serpent on a pole, and members are showing their lack of faith by not taking it!" Remember Ivermectin? It was ridiculous that it was roundly and soundly defeated as a therapy BEFORE anyone did any studies on it. What was more bizarre is that so many with the ability and resources to test it refused to do so for months and months..."just take the vaccine" they said. "Do what we say...because we say it". "If you don't take this shot that we say is best then you hate your fellow men". Maybe Ivermectin had a secondary effect that damaged or slowed the virus...or, maybe it wasn't effective in the slightest. But we don't know if we aren't allowed to ask the question. It all comes down to what question you're asking, and since the majority of celebrities and mass media lean left, your questions better forward their platform, or be considered unacceptable.

Oh, agree 100%. The original is a classic.

On a side note, rewatched this last night. Still a solid movie.

From my scripture reading this morning: 3rd Nephi 21: 26 And then shall the work of the Father commence at that day, even awhen this gospel shall be preached among the remnant of bthis people. Verily I say unto you, at that day shall the work of the Father commence among all the dispersed of my people, yea, even the tribes which have been clost, which the Father hath led away out of Jerusalem. Wherever the lost tribes are, the work of the Father has commenced among them. With the latter-day work today being led and carried out by God’s living prophets and apostles, It would be unusual if they were not closely involved in this work with the lost tribes.

We have a friend named Rachel. Her sister is dealing with the death of her husband. He died suddenly. Beyond the death itself and all that entails, this sister is dealing with several special issues. First, he didn't have life insurance. He wasn't even 40 years old, very healthy. So, extended family and friends will probably be pitching in for some costs. They will probably have to cremate. No ideas yet about how they're going to do financially without the father's income. Second, they have an autistic son who is not able to process "death". He simply doesn't understand why Daddy's not coming home. He ended up acting out at church by becoming very violent to those around him. Another BIL who was quite large intervened and was able to stop him. But everyone involved was bruised or worse. Third, the coroner can't release the body to the mortician because he cannot determine the cause of death. He's been looking at this body for a while and cannot find a single trace of anything abnormal. No signs of disease, weakened conditions, scar tissues, toxins, drugs... NOTHING. His entire body says that he was as fit as a fiddle. He just plain died. What little I know of this situation is ignorant at best. But as I understand it, he's attempting further investigation. And if a cause is not determined, some special process is required. So, the family doesn't even know when they can have a funeral. If anyone can spare some prayers for this family to be able to carry on, that would be appreciated.

One of the things the host brings up is that a US Geological Survey volcanologist was pivotal in preventing area governmental agencies from ending the "red zone" that had been put in place around the mountain to prevent anyone who didn't need to be there from being there, as homeowners who lived within the "red zone" were demanding to return to get their personal possessions. Sadly, he was killed when the volcano went erupted, as the "red zone" was calculated based on a vertical eruption when it actually erupted laterally, meaning that many areas considered "safe" were actually in the area of effect. It's a tragic reminder of the need to have bug-out bags and other critical material handy in case of an evacuation, as there may be no means of safely returning for an extended period.

Speaking as an MBA? Two of the most hateful, bigoted, and willfully ignorant people I have ever dealt with in my life had their doctorates in their chosen fields. One was an avowed atheist with a degree in social sciences, the other was a minister with a theology degree, and they both were of the opinion that their doctorate made them all-knowing and anyone who didn't bow down and worship at their feet was sub-human. Even the best of academics and professors can quickly find themselves losing touch with life outside of the Ivory Tower that is academia if they don't humble themselves enough to routinely interact with people from other walks of life. These two individuals, however, are the very definition of arrogance, to the point that they actually threw temper tantrums like angry children whenever they were presented with contradictory information that they couldn't refute or deny. Imagine that you're an average Dick or Jane. You've got a high school degree, and perhaps some trade school or on-the-job training. You encounter someone from academia who is like this, a raving egomaniac who doesn't believe you have the right to even speak with them unless it's to express your amazement. How are you going to react? What is your impression of academia going to be? It's not going to be very positive, is it? So next time you encounter someone who seems distrustful of those with post-graduate degrees, consider that perhaps their reaction is based on disgust or anger.

I have high-functioning autism, and was not diagnosed as such until well into adulthood. So, I'm speaking from experience here -> Most public schools are set up to essentially run kids through on an assembly line. The goal is to ensure that every kid gets a basic amount of knowledge in a standardized fashion so as to ensure that they grow up to become more or less functional adults and can hold basic jobs in society. The issue is with the term "standardized". For someone who is "average", this might or might not largely work. But for many students, "sitting in a classroom for 8 - 9 hours a day" is the worst thing that can happen. They need to be active as part of their learning process, and may even need to be given extra material that challenges them if they're truly at the top levels. Remember the old Calvin and Hobbes comic strip? How Calvin could have full conversations in Jacobean English with his mother, create elaborate fantasies in his head, and may have literally brought his stuffed tiger to life with the power of his imagination? But how he was near the bottom of his class in grades? In real life, kids like Calvin are bored out of their skulls by being in a classroom all day and learn best when they're going at their own pace and have motivation. These kids are often highly intelligent, and may have already taught themselves the subject matter being given to their peers. That's the big failing with public schooling, and part of why many parents go for private schools, magnet schools, or homeschooling so that they can adjust the speed and nature of the curriculum accordingly.

Hmm. I think you're mostly right here, but in the church we don't usually talk about ordination to the Melchizedek Priesthood as something that one "inherits" by "birthright". I suppose one could call such an ordination an "inheritance" that Christ offers to us through His grace; and in that sense, yes--it comes directly from Christ Himself, and one's lineal ancestry and one's sequence of birth within one's own family are generally irrelevant to whether one is eligible to hold the Melchizedek Priesthood. Conceptually: yes, one can be a member of the patriarchal order regardless of which tribe of Israel one is descended from. But I have perhaps been a bit careless upthread in the way I define "patriarchal order", and I should probably clarify that the patriarchal order can also involve people who have not been ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood. Specifically: --When a man and woman are sealed in the temple, only the husband has previously been ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood. But they are both participants in the patriarchal order even though the wife has no priesthood ordination at all. --Any children born to parents who have been sealed in the temple are also considered participants in the patriarchal order, in that they can be heirs to the covenants made by their parents. But this is, perhaps, overly pedantic for the purposes of our discussion. Again, fundamentally: you are right, the patriarchal order/holding the Melchizedek priesthood is not tied to one's Israelite lineage. I don't believe we know the answer to that. I think I mentioned upthread that for the roughly 400 years between the death of Joseph and the ministry of Moses, the scriptures don't give us a lot of information about how the priesthood functioned. Joshua 24:15 suggests that the Israelites, while in Egypt, fell into the worship of the Egyptian gods. One might speculate that when the Hebrews fell out of favor among the Egyptian pharaohs, Joseph's progeny would have been sorely tempted to downplay their descendance from him and instead emphasize their descent from his wife Asenath, the daughter of an Egyptian priest. And we are told, in the Church, that Moses received his priesthood ordination under the hand of his father-in-law Jethro (D&C 84:6), who was of Abrahamic descent but not an Israelite and not entitled to any Abrahamic birthright (D&C 84 specifically says that Jethro's priesthood came from an alternate line). This might suggest that at some point in Egypt, the Israelites fell into such a profound state of apostasy that the priesthood wasn't functioning among them at all--until Moses brought (a portion of) it back. With the caveat that this is what I think, and not formal LDS teaching, I would surmise: Jeremiah 31: I think it's both. There are references to Ephraim being the firstborn, but I think the main thrust of the passage is about the reunification/gathering of Israel as the rebellious return to their God and old animosities are healed. Hosea 4:17: Given its connection with backsliding Israel in the prior verse, and the distinction between Judah and Israel in verse 15, I suspect that "Ephraim" here is primarily a metonym for the leadership of the kingdom of Israel. Hosea 5:3-4: Ditto; and notice how Israel and Ephraim are lumped together but distinguished from (the kingdom of) Judah in verse 5. Hosea 6:10: Ditto; and again, notice how the whoredom of Ephraim and defiling of Israel are lumped together in one breath, and then Judah is spoken of distinctly in the next verse. Hosea 7: I'm inclined to read this as a broader indictment of the tribe of Ephraim, though its role in polluting the larger kingdom of Israel and preventing that kingdom's repentance (v 1) gives this some political connotations as well. Hosea 8:11-13: I suspect here, Ephraim is again a metonym for the northern kingdom (see v 14, and also consider that vv 12-13 are likely an allusion to the high place at Dan that was constructed by the Ephraimite king of Israel, Jeroboam). Hosea 9:3, 11-17: Ditto; and note the conjunction between Ephraim in v 11 and Israel in the preceding verse 10. Hosea 10:6: Ditto; again, note the conjunction between Ephraim and Israel and Samaria. Hosea 12: Ditto. Note v 1, where Ephraim is accused of entering political intrigues with Assyria--that was done by the Ephraimite kings on behalf of the entire northern kingdom. It wasn't just the tribe of Ephraim. Hosea 13:1: The KJV is a little opaque here, but other translations clarify that "when Ephraim spoke, there was terror". In other words, it's talking about Ephraim wielding secular/political power; so I read this as referring to Ephraim as a metonym for the northern kingdom. Later on in the chapter, the curses on Ephraim are broadened to include "Samaria" (ie, northern Israel). Hosea 14:8: Nothing in the surrounding verses directly ties Ephraim to the broader northern kingdom; this may be tribe-specific. Yes, I think that's fair. But again, in modern times, no particular lineage is a prerequisite to ordination in the Aaronic priesthood--lineage only comes into play when we are talking about serving in the office of "bishop", and even then, it's contingent on worthiness and subject to the authority of other church officials who hold the Melchizedek Priesthood.

The short version: A radioactive capsule measuring 8mm by 6mm fell off the back of a truck somewhere on the 1,400 kilometer route from a mine to a major city. People are looking for it. If you come within one meter of it you'll receive radiation equivalent to about 17 chest x-rays. The package left the mine on January 11 but nobody realised it was missing until January 25. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-28/radioactive-capsule-search-perth-to-pilbara-/101902914

The holiday hams are dropping in prices around us, to the point of awfully good deals. However, husband and I aren't communicating, so now we have like 6 hams we got for less than 99 cents a pound.

@The Folk Prophet some humor from our conversation yesterday.