Vort

Pachelbel's Canon in D Minor has to be mentioned, if for nothing else than that many classical music purists love to complain how awful it is. It's especially appropriate for this thread because it's another Baroque piece, contemporaneous with Bach (a fellow German). I discovered this particular piece on my mission in Italy in probably 1983, where I was allowed to own and listen to music only as long as that music was (a) LDS hymns, (b) sung by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, or (c) "classical" music, which meant any orchestral or piano/organ-based music without words, and preferably composed at least a hundred years ago. I don't remember ever having heard this music before then. I bought it quite accidentally; it was included on a tape of Vivaldi's Four Seasons. It captivated me. A fugue is a contrapuntal (that is, one that uses counterpoint) musical arrangement with several voices, where each voice sings/plays a theme, with variations on that theme throughout. My understanding is that a canonical fugue, or canon, is a type of fugue where each voice strictly imitates the preceding voice. Think of "Row, Row, Row Your Boat". (Before the term "canon" came into common usage, it was called a fuga legata or "tied fugue", meaning all the voices in the fugue were strictly tied together.) Canons also often use a basso continuo, a deep musical voice that did not follow the first canonical voice (called the leader). A canon of this type was called an "accompanied canon", for obvious reasons. Pachelbel's Canon is an accompanied canon with three voices, all of which are violins, plus a basso continuo that is usually either an organ or a cello. That's kind of unusual to have three violins, because normally the various voices use different instruments. If you keep in mind the idea of what a canon really is, it's easy to pick out how the leader plays its own lines, how the second voice repeats exactly what the leader played but two measures behind, and how the third voice then imitates the second voice two more measures behind it (four measures behind the leader). You have a line of musical phrase that harmonizes beautifully with itself when offset by multiples of two measures. I realize that I'm a rube, musically speaking, but to me that's just mind-blowing. It's some kind of miracle. Ignore the haters that like to bag on Pachelbel's Canon. Just enjoy the beautiful, relaxing ride.

Related and unabashedly slanted. That article is not an honest, evenhanded attempt to describe and assess what happened. People who write articles like that deserve to be assiduously ignored.

@Just_A_Guy, I don't normally think of a harp as a fugal instrument, like I do an organ, or a piano, or an ensemble or orchestra. But she does a wonderful (and beautiful) job of it. Toccata and Fugue in D Minor is not my favorite Baroque piece, or even my favorite Bach piece. (Bach had an incredible range and versatility within the Baroque tradition.) But the Toccata, as some call it, is widely recognized and, I think, musically undervalued.

Bach encompasses a whole lot of goodness. This beautiful and popular air was actually the second of five movements for Bach's Orchestral Suite No. 3 in D major. But Bach is surely much better known today for his organ music and specifically for his fugues, the most popular today of which must certainly be the Toccata and Fugue in D Minor. I have been told that this is because it was a popular piece of music for early 20th-century horror movies. I don't guarantee the veracity of that information; believe at your own risk. In any case. Ironically, it's the "toccata" part that is so famous, ostensibly because of the "horror" feeling attached to it. I don't think it's horrific, but I wasn't born in 1920, so what do I know? If you (plural "you", not specifically Suzie, who doubtless has listened to this piece a lot) haven't listened to this piece much, I urge you to listen to it all the way through, after the completion of the toccata at 2:41 in the recording below, when the fugue begins. It's a fun and pretty little fugue that picks up steam several minutes in. The ending is really powerful. All in all, a great piece of music, an enrichment for the human race thanks to a modest and God-fearing German born in 1685 and who died 26 years before the American colonies declared their independence.

Or that you will undercook your eggs to ensure a soft yoke.

Growing up, I heard many slurs against homosexuals and homosexuality. Most of them were heard in my public school; no such things were ever said in my home, and almost none were heard at Church. Those times I did hear such things at Church were invariably from the mouths of one or more of a few young men my age or a little older who thought themselves edgy and cool, and who attended Church only because their parents "made" them. The only thing I have ever heard taught at Church or by Church leaders about homosexuality is that it is a perversion of sex, a sin, and a practice that we ought never to embrace or even experiment with. That teaching seems pretty much baseline for such a topic. To teach less than that would be to do a grave disservice to our children who need to understand gospel principles. Again, I do not remember ever having heard a teacher or Church leader demonize someone struggling in sin, including homosexuality. Based on my own experience, I doubt such a thing is common. I appreciate your sincere concern for your brothers and sisters who may be facing such issues, but I suspect many of those who claim to have experienced such bitter persecution have in actuality experienced Church leaders, teachers, and members talking about fleeing from sin and not allowing it to pollute us.

So it would seem that the new mRNA vaccines absolutely fail to meet the definition of "gene therapy", in that it doesn't modify/alter human DNA. And it would seem they absolutely meet the FDA and CDC definitions of a vaccine, in that it stimulates the body's immune system to produce immunity. Would you concur? Also, when the CDC, FDA, Mayo Clinic, and scientific journals across decades, all seem to be in agreement, and "Some guy on the internet says his doctor said something else", can you understand why people might be willing to discard the random internet guy and his random doctor's opinion, instead going with what appears to be broad international multidecade consensus? Furthermore, why would they use the mRNA? I assume because it's the mRNA utilized by the virus. If that's the case, then it's stretching semantics to call that somehow intrinsically different from using weakened or killed viruses or surface proteins. It is of the spirit and nature of a vaccine. What else can you reasonably call it, except to make up a new term for it that will be defined as, "A vaccine that targets based on virus-utilized mRNA instead of actual virus proteins or DNA/RNA"?

I guess that depends on what you mean by "room in the Church". There is always room in the pews. As long as people don't disrupt meetings or use such meetings as an opportunity to preach against the Restored Gospel, they are always welcome. But if you're talking about being baptized—that is a different matter. Those who are baptized are under covenant to live the gospel. If they choose not to live the gospel, and especially if they openly flout gospel principles, they risk being excommunicated. Such people should never be baptized into the Church; doing so does the Church ill and puts them in a situation to condemn themselves by disobeying their covenants. We should definitely be sensitive. But by the same token, we should always preach the gospel in clear tones. Some things are perhaps not "core doctrine" and might be better left unspoken in certain instances. But the sanctity of the family is absolutely central to gospel teachings. Why should the girl go crying to her mother because an obvious and very important truth was taught? The only possible way she could have taken offense is if she connected up the dots and came to the conclusion that living a lesbian lifestyle is anti-family and thus anti-Christ. If that were the case, she should neither take offense nor go crying to her mother, but should reassess her beliefs and commitments, and decide whether the path of lesbianism or the path of the gospel were the one she wanted to walk. I realize she's a youth and not an adult, but if she's old enough to go to seminary, she's old enough to ask herself some hard questions. You cannot walk the gospel path and a path of sin simultaneously.

So much for having the last word. Another lie, apparently. I had thought we were friends until fairly recently. I had valued you as a friend and had tried to treat you as such. But as you have decided, we're not there. Guess we never will be.

You like to pretend that insults are strictly joking between friends. But then you misuse such insults to level cutting and unfair personal allegations against your so-called friends, all with what you think is the deniable plausibility of "Hey, just a joke, buddy! What are you getting all uptight about?" Bull crap. I recognize your game, and I won't play it. By the way, your insinuation that I think a woman baring her shoulders deserves being catcalled is a lie. Not a joke, a lie. You are lying. And that's not a joke.

I ignored it because it was irrelevant. Of course the kid deserves jail time. That doesn't justify your horrendous judgment in equating the two acts.

Unlikely.

But since you're all hung up on the fact that the kid was not charged with murder, but manslaughter, I will rephrase. Failing to equate the "n-word" to wrongfully killing someone is exactly as bad as justifying wrongfully killing someone. Feel better?

Absolutely. Failing to equate the "n-word" to murder is exactly as bad as justifying murder.

What was I thinking? He said a bad word MULTIPLE TIMES. That certainly justifies homicide. Thanks for pointing out that relevant detail. Please note that the guy who was killed was not actually a victim; he was a "victim". Just an even-headed assessment of the situation.