Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 07/02/22 in all areas

  1. Meanwhile, the media and Democrats studiously look the other way while our cities burn. I voted for Trump in 2020. I think his SC appointments will be his lasting legacy. I believe I misunderstood his (admittedly base and crude) sense of humor before listening to much of it, which is where most of the animus against him originates. I am no huge fan of Trump, but nothing I have seen from the highly biased media has convinced me he's likely guilty of anything beyond stinking rotten politics. The rioters, on the other hand, were fomenting and actually committing criminal acts in the name of revolution (aka sedition), just as the pro-abortionists are now doing, literally threatening the lives of Supreme Court justices. Somehow, this has been utterly forgotten (read: covered up) by the media, replaced by a handful of drunken yahoos whose "storming of the Capitol" involved walking around armed and stealing souvenirs. The uneven enforcement isn't even hidden any more. If I'm cynical, it's because the media are a bunch of liars.
    4 points
  2. I am in sympathy with much of what you say, but when we talk about committing a crime—crime is determined not just by result, but by intent; and words like “insurrection” have a very particular meaning. When we throw them around loosely, it makes it that much harder later when we find ourselves up against the real thing but have been dulled to it because of the hyperbolic nature of the last half-century of political discourse (cf “communist”, “fascist”, “bigotry”, “oppressor”, “totalitarian”, “lock her up”, “groomer”, etc). Trump should have de-escalated. He didn’t. His failure to do so, to my mind, simply affirms his unfitness for leadership. But was it a product of his specific desire for an armed assault on the Capitol, or was a product of a larger personal flaw that renders “de-escalation” generally contrary to his general nature and character?
    3 points
  3. It has to do with the Irish (or the Scottish, if I'm remembering wrong). The Irish had this tradition of 1. Shortening names. 2. Replacing a single letter just to make it different. 3. Make adjustments to make it sound cool 4. Add an "ee" sound at the end. So, William --> Will --> Bill --> Billy Likewise: Robert --> Rob --> Bob --> Bobby For Margaret, they figured a longer name deserves double duty Margaret --> Mag --> Meg --> Peg --> Peggy. Sarah --> Sar --> Sal --> Sally Remember the Irish think that "Siobhan" is supposed to be pronounced "Shuh-VAHN".
    2 points
  4. I was reading a biography yesterday that reminded me that “Peggy” is a traditional nickname for “Margaret”, and I still have no idea how that one ever got started.
    2 points
  5. You need only look at @mirkwood's post above for the link. But of course, people who automatically (and without evidence) accuse Trumpsters of simply ignoring all the goings on at the Capital as "Fake News" are all ready to call the information in that link as fake news as well. FTR, I never said that the testimony thus far is fake news. I just haven't bothered to try figuring that out since I know the procedures are completely unjust, we can't be taken in by a partial picture of things.
    2 points
  6. To clarify, I’m riffing on the suggestion upthread that the congresscritters are deliberately refusing to call the people who were actually in the car, and saying that the notion (fictions or otherwise) of doing so is mind-boggling.
    2 points
  7. FWIW, under courtroom rules there are a host of exceptions to the prohibition on hearsay (I believe federal rules of evidence 803 and 804 govern federal courts); and law school “evidence” classes spend about a month on all of it, and even then lawyers (including me!) and judges routinely get it wrong. But, the notion that we would accept hearsay while deliberately excluding direct evidence—that is mind-boggling.
    2 points
  8. From at least the time I was 12 years old, literally from my childhood, I have wondered why so many used the growth of the Church as some sort of testimony of its truthfulness. As I've gotten older, I have decided that the simplest explanation is also the best: the Argumentum ad Populum. But the word of the Lord makes it clear that, until he comes and brings again Zion, his people will always form just a small minority of the earth's population. It's fun to watch the Church grow, but I have seen many online anti-LDS and those weak in the faith who have argued that the Church's diminishing growth is evidence of its lack of divine approval. If we're going to go by absolute numbers to determine what truth is, we should all be Roman Catholics*. *(For whom I have gained a lot of respect over the years. If I were to leave the Restored Church of Christ but remain a nominal Christian, I would almost certainly become a Roman Catholic. For all the theological problems of their doctrines and practices, they produce some very decent people, and offer the only real alternative to continuity of Priesthood authority from the time of the Lord's mortal sojourn until now. I'm no Catholic basher.)
    2 points
  9. As old school as this sounds, I truly truly believe this is one of the biggest issues in society today.
    2 points
  10. BTW, here is a screenshot from the churches 1999 handbook:
    1 point
  11. classylady

    Sunday School

    I too have found that the youth understand more than we think they do. I’m working with 11 year olds to 14 year olds and that is quite a maturity age gap between them. Some of my 11 year olds are still so sheltered. Some not. I don’t mince words as we talk about the strengths and weaknesses of the people in the Old Testament. I try to bring attention to their own experiences that correlate to what happened in the scriptural experiences and share my own life experiences to enhance and bring interest to the lesson. Hopefully, it will stick with them. If your insight is correct in that the youth remember the lesson material, that is a good thing. I also hope they can remember the feelings. My own personal experience is I don’t remember anything much that my teachers taught me, or even remember the feelings. About all I remember is that one teacher told us she got married at the age of 14, (she said she wasn’t pregnant), and I was shocked! I was about that age myself, maybe a little older, and I could not imagine getting married at that age. She wasn’t too much older than us, probably in her early 20’s. Her parents gave their permission for her marriage, again something I have a hard time understanding. The only other experience I really remember is that one teacher had me babysit her children. I was the only one she trusted to watch her kids, and that made me feel good. That had nothing to do about the lessons at all. Though, I do remember that particular teacher telling us that her first born died of SIDS. So, I tend to remember the personal experiences my teachers told us.
    1 point
  12. Good questions. And the answers for both "affirms his unfitness for leadership" IMHO. JAG, I appreciate your take on this because it tells me that even though there are people out there who do support Trump and many of the good things he did, it doesn't mean they are blind followers willing to justify anything and everything. I don't recall who said it, but a Republican some time ago said something along the lines of "Trump is not part of the Republican party, he IS the Republican party." This level of deification and adulation is extremely concerning.
    1 point
  13. Or "Sally" from "Sarah".
    1 point
  14. Conclusively perhaps not, but the "event" was planned and even promoted online. He knew they were fully armed and his speech did nothing to calm the mob but all the opposite. He wanted support, he wanted people to rile up and stand by him no matter what. He took a very Machiavellian approach "the end justifies the means" and that's a very scary way of thinking and acting particularly if you happen to be the POTUS. It is the behavior of either a very evil and self-absorbed narcissist or someone who is unhinged or demented. And yet, I feel as though none of this is important because "he was good for the economy". Honestly, I feel as though he can go and commit the most serious crime in front of the whole world and someone will say "but did he really do it? Hmmmm Do we have proof?. Maybe it was a double...those dems again!" or worse: "I don't care about that, look how good our economy is now!".
    1 point
  15. Carborendum

    Visit to Nauvoo

    No, I had not. Prior to tis day, I had never even thought about where they may have been buried. It just never occurred to me. The information in Weber's work, contradicts the placards at the family plot. It may be that they simply have not yet been updated. But the family plots still mark the graves of the other members of the family. But Joseph and Hyrum are not so labeled. But the placard says that they are buried under that outbuilding that is pictured in Weber's paper. I also noticed Weber mentions the Scannel Daguerrotype. I thought that had been debunked. In fact, I thought all the images had been debunked. The controversy on page 4... I don't see how they could have mixed up the two skulls. Hyrum was shot in the face. That would have damaged the bones. It would have to have been broken to some degree because it was a fatal blow. Did no one notice? Back to the site. The placards talk about how they moved the bodies around to several places because they were afraid of enemies seeking to desecrate the bodies. I don't know about all the descriptions of exhuming and relocating, etc. that Weber describes. I just know what I saw currently at the site. And it only shows other people's names. Joseph and Hyrum don't have a placard. Only the placard at the front saying that they are still buried under that outbuilding. NOTE: the plot is currently owned & maintained by the Community of Christ (formerly the RLDS church).
    1 point
  16. Indeed; and as you hint in your post, a lot of the meaning of that statement depends on whether he emphasized the “me” or the “hurt” when he made the statement. Additionally, just because he didn’t mind armed people where he was speaking (at the Ellipse, right?) doesn’t mean he intended for armed people to enter the Capitol—the really damning thing would be if he ordered the Capitol police to quit using their metal detectors, or whether he blocked a request by Capitol Police for federal assistance. So far (and granted, I haven’t been following this very closely), I’m not sure that’s been conclusively shown.
    1 point
  17. I agree. I have always gone by a name that is different from my legal name. One's preferred name does not necessarily or inherently convey gender, especially not in the same way that pronouns do.
    1 point
  18. NEVER HAPPENED: Secret Service Members Ready to Testify, Dispute Hutchinson's Jan. 6 Story (hannity.com)
    1 point
  19. You forgot to mention that hearsay evidence is allowed.
    1 point
  20. I really have no idea how much of what we're seeing is true or false. But I tend to look at the bigger picture of the so-called trial. All witnesses and inquiries are one-sided. No effort is being made to: Call opposing witnesses. Allow for cross-examination of the witnesses. Defend / listen to those languishing in solitary confinement for nearly a year and a half. Even if 100% of what you're hearing so far is true, do you honestly believe that you're getting the whole picture with such a kangaroo court? (I mean that by its technical definition, not the connotative meaning). If you haven't even noticed any gaping holes in the witnesses' testimonies that would have been brought up during cross-ex, then you are oblivious to your own bias.
    1 point
  21. It dawns on me, I haven’t heard two phrases in over a month: ”Birthing person” “Hate speech”
    1 point
  22. They want to kill babies. Why would you think they might not want to kill anyone and everyone who disagrees with them?
    1 point
  23. I think the point Carbs is making is that, unlike pro-lifers, we don’t take an absolute position that life begins at conception or that *all* abortion is tantamount to killing. We feel it’s “close enough” that we generally support restriction/prohibition of elective abortion, but we don’t camp out at abortion clinics shrieking “murderer!” And dumping blood on people. The subset of LDS who openly advocate elective abortion, I think, aren’t necessarily missing any deep theology that specifically addresses precisely when life begins. What they are missing, I think, is a broader understanding of chastity and the meaning of life and how to find personal fulfillment. The pro-elective-abortion movement, at its core, assumes that a) consequence-free indulgence of human appetites are so essential to the human condition that at least some of them—especially sex—ought to be regarded as a human right; and b) that the denial of this “right” fundamentally makes life not worth living. There’s a whole constellation of social issues and life problems that ultimately arise from the interplay of these two assumptions—abortion, LGBTQ issues, sexual violence, divorce, fatherlessness (and, via fatherlessness, crime and poverty generally), the “crisis of connection”, mental health, obesity, suicide . . . The Church is not immune from these trends; and it becomes further entangled in them to the extent that its youth become caught up in the broader secular disregard for the principles of chastity and self-sacrifice and healthy human relationships.
    1 point
  24. For the most part, no, you're not missing anything. But there are a few historical aspects that you are probably missing. WHAT LIBERALS ARE MISSING: When abortion became a debatable topic (i.e. enough people on both sides of the aisle that there was reasonable cause to have public debates about it) the meaning of pro-choice/pro-abortion was to allow for those few exceptions. Prior to that, abortion was almost never legal. Over time, public sentiment changed such that most conservatives are the ones saying that it should be legal in those special circumstances. At the same time and liberals were asking for taxpayer funded abortions upto and including partial-birth abortion. People didn't take notice of the change in the conditions/definitions. They merely carried on with the party they were raised in. WHAT CONSERVATIVES ARE MISSING: The Church's position on abortion and the meaning of abortion is not what most believe it is. They don't realize that (by the description above) the Church was quite liberal in the 60s and 70s since its official position was "Pro-Choice". But to paraphrase Reagan (my position didn't change, the pro-choice movement changed). Per President McKay, we don't know when the spirit enters the body. No prophetic word has defined that. So, theologically, we don't know when the embryo/fetus is "alive" (as defined by when the spirit enters the body). We do know by John the Baptist that it happens long before birth. But that is all we know. So, we don't know if it is "murder". He also noted that since we have no prophetic word that it is "listed" as one of the unforgivable sins, then it "probably" is forgivable. Again, a lot of unknowns here. So, are we "killing" a physical body that may or may not have a spirit? We don't have much in the way of prophetic guidance. The word we have been given is that it is still destroying a temple of God and (at the very least) destroying a "potential" life. What we do know is that the Church has supported those few exceptions. And that whether murder or not, (again Per Pres. McKay) it is still considered one of the most grievous sins of this generation. Under what conditions would we justifiably "destroy a temple of God"?
    1 point
  25. Elder Bednar believes agency is the least understood gospel principle. Do you think his comments would indicate that it's our responsibility not to justify the sins of others? I'm sure he's mostly speaking of our individual actions, but he also mentioned our agency being enlarged, which I take it as impacting more than just self.
    1 point
  26. Some of these ideas come up in various LDS liturgies that we don’t specifically cite to outside of the temple but which we believe were given by revelation.
    1 point
  27. You may not be able to find such revelations, but rest assured, they are there, available to all sincere seekers who covenant with God to hold sacred the teachings they receive.
    1 point
  28. Carborendum

    Ruth and The Feet

    Most people reading the Book of Ruth tend to get hung up on the whole thing about Boaz's feet. What was up with that? What I was surprised by was how many people assume the worst and believe that Ruth was doing something untoward to Boaz. Even Matthew Henry seems to get this impression. But he relents and chooses to believe it only "seemed" that way. But it still shouldn't have been done. So, he splits the difference and blames Naomi for encouraging her. Still a LOT of commentators (both past centuries, and current ones) tend to believe it was a euphemism. Many of those pushing the unseemly narrative show their ignorance of the Hebrew language and of the customs of the people of that day. But most of the more modern ones tend to be less scholarly. The more scholarly sources seem to point out historical and cultural context that indicates that it was all above board. So, why should we care? She was human. She could sin and repent. Why bother clearing her name? Well, we certainly don't want to tarnish the reputation of someone who was deemed a virtuous woman, especially if we do so simply out of ignorance. We know that she was a woman who was touched by the Spirit. A convert to the religion of Israel, she left her homeland and all she knew to live by the commandments of a God she came to accept as her own. The Law of Moses required that her near kinsman take her to wife. And (as far as she knew at the time) that was Boaz. It was her actual RIGHT to demand that he marry her and care for her. But she didn't do that. And the way she went about it showed just how humbly she went about it. First, it was a custom for some trusted servants to sleep at or near the feet of their master (like a dog, one might say). So, when it says she was sleeping at his feet, she was really sleeping at his feet. And it was a sign of humility and submission. This was further amplified by uncovering his feet. This process has been called chalitzah. The shoe thing was part of Middle Eastern culture prior to the Law of Moses. It was a means of "sealing the deal." That's why it was added as part of the instruction for chalitzah. Nowadays it is the more common choice among Jews who have been widowed because of various practical reasons. I don't know how much they spit in each others' eyes anymore. Basically, Ruth was letting him know that she was aware of his duty under the law, but she was also saying that she was perfectly willing to accept chalitzah if he chose not to. She already began the process of rejection by uncovering his feet so it would be easier to take his shoe off. (Remember he was in the threshing room floor. One does not walk around that with bare feet). She did this to let him know that she was not embarassing him in public and forcing him into a marriage that he wouldn't want (there was a certain amount of shame when a man chose this and the woman did not). So, she just brought the choice to him in the least threatening way possible. That is what the feet thing was about. I'm not going to go into all the linguistic reasoning why the "euphemistic" interpretation would be stretching the imagination. But suffice it to say, it just wasn't so. As Boaz instructed Ruth to leave, he wanted her to remain stealthy so people didn't get the wrong idea. There was no "wrong idea" if they had actually done the deed. It is much more likely that nothing immoral occurred, and they both wanted to keep it that way. They also didn't want anyone else to think incorrectly. When Boaz spoke with the near kinsman in front of a crowd of witnesses, he took his shoe off of his foot to seal the deal that Boaz would marry Ruth and that the kinsman wanted nothing to do with her. EDIT: An interesting thing to note was that Ruth was in fact offering a proposal of marriage when she said And the "spread thy skirt" was actually a euphemism. But it was meant to be within a formal marriage. Further evidence that this was still chaste is If they had already done it, he wouldn't have to promise "I *will* do" emphasizing the fact that she is a VIRTUOUS WOMAN.
    1 point
  29. That reminds me of an "engineer" joke I once saw: Engineer 1 arrives at Engineer 2's house on a very powerful motorcycle. Engineer 2: Where did you get the wheels? Engineer 1: Oh, a lady rode up to me on it yesterday, stripped off her leather suit and said: "Take what you want!" So I took the motorcycle. Engineer 2: Wise choice, mate! The suit probably wouldn't have fit!
    0 points
  30. From Sheryl Crow:
    0 points
  31. You mean, your legal name isn’t “person0”?
    0 points