Vort

They quit making any more of it.

Mmmmm...I think probably not. We aren't nearly the hunters that cats are, we don't have the sense of smell that dogs have, we don't have the visual acuity of an eagle. But we do well at what we're fitted for, just like a whale or a slug or an owl. For instance, there is no distance runner that can match humans. When it comes to "persistence hunting", we're the champions. Dogs and doglike animals (e.g. hyenas) do some persistence hunting, but nothing like humans can do. When it comes to intentionally modifying our external environment, again, we're the champions. So we fill our niche and do a wonderful, perhaps incredible, job at it. But we don't run as fast as horses or cats, that's true, or pull the weight that a bovine can pull. Our particular brilliance is in yoking the oxen to pull things for us.

I dislike certain tags that oversimplify and distort matters, such as the "Two-Cumorah Theory". Rather than state the matter as "there were two or perhaps more hills called Cumorah", which, though possible, sounds clearly like a stretch (or a tautology—"King Lear was not written by William Shakespeare, but by another playwright of the same name"), a better statement would be, "Perhaps the very name 'Hill Cumorah' simply means the hill chosen to house records." If we assume that records were always hidden somewhere on a hill so that (1) they would be marked by an easily recognizable landmark and (2) they would shed rainfall, it's easy to see that such a hill might become generally known as "Records Hill". Those concerned with record-keeping would quickly learn to look for the Records Hill in an area. If "Cumorah" denotes written records or a storage place for them, then this identification makes perfect sense. Of course, it's still an unsupported assertion, really just speculation. But it certainly has great explanatory value for those who believe the literal truth of the Book of Mormon and the narrative that it provides, and it doesn't immediately raise suspicion and mockery like "Two-Cumorah Theory" does.

Nor do I. You are many things, mostly good things, but even among the not-so-good bits that any mortal man must exhibit, I've never seen you as a shill for the Left. I simply think you have accepted the Left's view of the J6 events, and in that I disagree. I figure both notions are fatally flawed. It's ok to understand right-leaning issues, black anger, and leftist anticapitalist rage. It's ok when folks protest. It stops being ok, IMO, after the first bit of vandalism, property destruction, pushed-through crowd control barrier. I don't care what side you're on, you lose my support the second your anger and rage and protesting turns into property destruction and interfering with the rule of law or the proper functioning of our protective institutions. I actually agree with the substance of your analysis. While I do not buy into the whole BLM philosophy, I think they could potentially make a good point that the whole societal structure masks the injustices they perceive. I think that they are right to some degree, though not nearly to the degree that they claim. So yes, I am essentially preaching that same gospel, though applied differently. I disbelieve their application of it, which I see to be immensely self-serving and perverse, but I have no fundamental beef with the underlying idea or principle that perceptions are shaped and influenced by the status quo and by seemingly unrelated things, such as verbal expressions and actions that act for some as "dog whistles". I deplore the Left's relentness cynicism and nihilism that they freely use to achieve their end goals, but I don't dispute the fundamental idea that manipulation of perceptions is real. On the contrary, the Left are masters at such manipulation. They wrote the book on it. Of course. That was never at issue, at least not in my mind. My apologies if I came across as too strong. Overreact? Moi? Shirley ewe jest.

This is an example of the whole "my people seem to have a different colored sky than me" thing I've noticed about J6. It's so bizarre to me. Even Vort, one of the smartest, most reasonable people I know, seems to enter this bizarro world where they read something critical of J6, and hear the exact opposite of what got said. My fatal flaw (as noted above) was incorrectly ordering the events. Yes, I understand that the order of events was your whole point. (Well, not your whole point, but an important part of it.) In that, you are right and I am wrong. Trump's calls for peace took place after the whole shebang went off. But I actually don't care about that part. I assume Trump did not realize exactly what was happening, and when he became really aware of how "his side" was being embarrassed by the actions of the protesters, he tweeted off his humble, peace-giving advice. (More sarcasm, for the humor-impaired.) Were his tweets convenient and self-serving? That's entirely possible. Were they insincere? Maybe so. But they cannot reasonably be counted against him. Trump was calling for peace. That cannot be twisted to say, "Look, he was secretly encouraging seditious behavior!" This is true, even if Trump was actually acting in a self-serving and insincere manner. No, not opposite day. Possibly "Vort not reading carefully and responding exactly to what's there" day. But as I said, I don't care much about the timeline, except insofar as it might actually exonerate or condemn Trump. I don't think it does either, though I'd lean slightly more towards "exonerate" than "condemn". In any case, I freely grant you that point. The timeline does not demonstrate Trump getting right on top of the (so-called) insurrection at the earliest possible moment and immediately pleading for calm. Yes, indeed! And I say that only slightly tongue-in-cheek. The J6 incident does not exist in a vacuum. The background to the event was many years, even decades, of the media championing the Left and ignoring the Left's "peccadillos" (little Clinton reference there) while propounding and magnifying any perceived infraction by the Right. George W. Bush was personally responsible for everything from oil price increases to the melting ice caps. Molly Ivins, may she rest in hell peace, took every opportunity to blame Bush for everything she could possibly pin on him, no matter how absurd. Her co-columnists and media cronies said not one word against her unhinged railings. That's one example among thousands. Yes, the fact that the Left acts vastly worse than J6 and doesn't get called on it is not only relevant, IT'S THE WHOLE POINT. The J6 incident was an act of stupidity, more laughable than concerning. The same cannot possibly be said of the BLM riots. Yet which of the two events has resulted in YEARS of breast-beating by the press, and which was essentially poo-pooed out of existence and ignored to this day? You treat the J6 incident as if it was exactly as serious as the press claimed (and claims) it to have been. It was not, but you preach the line on that. So yes, I maintain that if you are going to take that stance, that it is only reasonable that you voice vastly more concern for the vastly more concerning incidents that preceded J6, and that doubtless at least indirectly influenced its very occurrence. We live in Clown World. However, I do not consider you a clown. I respect your opinion, and often agree with it. I appreciate your viewpoint. But on this matter, I hear you parroting the distortions and excesses of the "mainstream media" while offering no counterpoint that might explain the immense dissatisfaction felt by those who are ostensibly (and wrongly accused of being) the supporters and perpetrators of J6—namely the political Right. As someone who is in many ways a part of the political Right, I explicitly disclaim any responsibility with regard to the J6 incidents, both for myself and for the political Right in general. In this, I directly disagree with you, based on your statement that "Our side screwed up royally on J6. If we're gonna have problems with Antifa and BLM riots, and defend what happened on J6, then we're just as hypocritical as the folks who defend Antifa and BLM riots, but have problems with J6". Specifically, "our side" did not "screw up royally" (or in any other way). Some idiots who call themselves conservative screwed up royally. That is not on me or on the conservative movement in general. And yes, you absolutely must mention the evils of the Left, especially when they very directly contribute to the behaviors you are ascribing (wrongly, in my view) to the entire political Right. That was pretty much the point I was trying to make.

Because "right wing extremist" has almost no meaning. It is a media-invented bugbear. And this is vastly different from the left-wing actions taken throughout the entire election that were implicitly and sometimes explicitly approved by the media—how, exactly? So Trump, but not exactly. Seriously? That an openly partisan House impeached Trump for a non-existent insurrection somehow proves Trump guilty? This is not even close to true. He did indeed begin instructing people to be peaceful, but not until after all the horrible had happened. The march hit the capitol a little after 2PM. Pence and the Senators, engaged in certifying the election, had to stop certifying the election, and started getting evacuated around 2:13. The peaceful transition of power, a founding cornerstone of our great republic, was interrupted by the people who hit the capitol. These people had been whipped up into action by Trump, Guliani, and Trump Jr. Unbelievable. By your own admission, Trump instructed people to be peaceful. Then some handful of drunken, blathering idiots marched on the Capitol, and suddenly it's an "insurrection"? And Trump is responsible for that, because he voiced the opinion that the vote was not legitimate? Methinks you are trying far too hard to be "fair and unbiased", to the point that you're way overreaching and assigning blame to the political Right that the Right does not own. It is not the fault of the Right wing, or of Republicans in general, or of conservatives, or even of Trump, that some boozed-up morons walked through the Capitol building pretending to be heroic and humiliating themselves. I am not a fan of fiery protests or street swarming. I think people who engage in such protests are, generally speaking, fools and shills, empty-headed partisans who could not think their way out of a subway conversation. I think such people are normally made of of Lefties, and that they should be treated with all the contempt that the J6 fools seem to inspire in their detractors. And if you think the videos you linked are so terribly scary, take a look at video from the BLM riots. That was an actual example of lawlessness and insurrection, an example widely supported by the Democrats and other lefties, including the media, with no punishment enforced against basically anyone. And then everyone in the media focuses on the J6. We're not stupid, NT. We see what's going on here. We do not dismiss what happened on J6. We assert that it was far less dangerous and criminal (and organized by nefarious actors) than what happened before. We decry the openly partisan nature of the "debate" around these events conducted by the media. It is a witch hunt. No. "Our side" did not "screw up royally". That is a false allegation, assigning the blame of the actions of a few to the many. "Our side" had nothing to do with J6. I do not believe that Trump was directly involved, and I suspect his indirect involvement was limited to encouraging the public crying and screaming and other ridiculousness that you support, but not active suppression of Congressional activity. Whatever Trump tried to do in that regard, he tried to do through public actors in their official capacity. If you want to claim that Trump was trying to get people to do illegal or at least questionable things to delay the election count, go for it. Maybe you're right. If such actions were investigated, charges brought, and convictions made in a court of law, I and most other conservatives would support it. But shockingly enough (<--I'm being sarcastic here, in case anyone missed it), that's not the route this whole thing has taken. Rather, it's been media setup, constant politicking, and Colorado (et alia) media-driven political idiots making blatantly illegal (and insurrectionist, if we're being honest) efforts to remove a candidate from the ballot who has been convicted of absolutely nothing sedition-wise. Trump is a funny guy to have as a hero. At first glance (like, say, in 2016), it's hard to come up off the cuff with a less likeable, supportable candidate for President of the United States of America than Donald Trump. But the more I hear his ridiculous bellowing, the less ridiculous it sounds. The more I see the results of his efforts, the less I hate him. Meanwhile, the media is baffled that we don't like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

When Sotomayor and Jackson both join the majority in a unanimous decision, you know you're an idiot for your illegal actions. What an unmitigated failure for Colorado. What a rebuke to the orchestrating Democrats and other leftists. What a deep embarrassment to any sentient American who supported such a farcical move.

Because it fits their narrative. Period.

We act in our own self-interest. Which is to say, our politicians act in their own self-interest. But that doesn't mean that the US is not carrying too much of NATO's burden. I think we are. Not sure what the appropriate response is, but I'm pretty confident that it isn't to stay the course. As is way too often the case, Trump's blusterings have more than a faint ring of truth to them.

Irrelevant. Within the context of the New Testament account, Jesus is divine. To ignore that context is not merely to cherry-pick one's evidence, it is to render the words meaningless. You might as well say that Jehovah was "sexist". Not merely stupid, but self-contradictory, regardless of one's personal philosophy or religious beliefs.

Christ's whip was for those acting literally as moneychangers in the temple. The dove sellers were acting, perhaps innocently, as providers of the needed sacrifice. They may have thought they were acting acceptably, not much different from today's Saints renting temple clothing at the temple.

Or Pocahontas.

Germany. I mean Almany. You know, Teutonia. Or Saxony. Uh, Tedeschia. Doychland, that is.

In my twenties, in the years following my mission, I got to know quite a few New Yorkers who happened to have moved to Utah or Pennsylvania or wherever I was living at the time. I had had almost no contact with people from NYC throughout my life, but I happened to get to know several (a dozen or so) pretty well. They tended to be loud and opinionated, which was sort of the stereotype, so I was not surprised by that. I was shocked—shocked, I tell you! (but I really was)—that they as a group were easily the most provincial individuals I had ever met. New York City was not merely their world; in their eyes, it was the world. They knew shockingly little about the rest of the world, including Europe but, more surprisingly, about the United States. They talked about "the big square states out West", but they couldn't name a half dozen of those states (they got California and Texas—yes, Texas is a western state if you're a New Yorker). They often seemed frankly baffled when people did not share their particular viewpoint on a given topic. It was really amazing to see, and not at all what I had anticipated. I remember going to Italy and finding the Italians (whom I had always assumed were so suave and cosmopolitan compared to a yokel like me) to be quite provincial, at least as much as my fellow Americans. Imagine my surprise to find out New Yorkers were much more so. tl;dr—I agree. Big city folks are often in much more of a bubble than anyone else. As the New Yorker film critic Pauline Kael was claimed* to have said, "I can’t believe Nixon won. I don’t know anyone who voted for him." *Her actual quote was slightly less provincial (or at least she was more aware of her own provinciality) but even more full of New York superiority: "I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them." Well, at least she didn't say "sometimes when I'm in a theater I can smell them", though I expect that's what she meant.

Happy birthday, mirk! Just remember: SSM: I am getting too old. Vort: Just bringin' some blue into your red life!

I sang hymns to my children for bedtime while they were little. A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief was one of the most popular—perhaps the most popular, often requested and greatly enjoyed. Secretly, I have never been a huge fan of the hymn. I mean, it's fine, nice message and all, but it has always seemed a bit maudlin and overwrought to me. Plus it has like twenty-eight verses, all pretty much restating the same theme of some hapless soul in need of charity who, in receiving the care, seems to give it back in manifold* measure. My wife likes it better than I do. But for some reason, my children just loved it. So I'm not sure why it's so popular, but it seems to strike an almost universal chord in the hearts of hearers, including my own children. *I've been working on my son's car with him, so I guess certain words are on my mind.

The washing of feet was an ordinance. That is completely not understood by wider Christianity—by pretty much anyone who is not a Latter-day Saint—though it's glaringly obvious to us. They turn the washing of feet into a cheap trope for treating strangers nicely. But even beyond that, a point that it's hard to hold non-LDS responsible for missing, the commercial is a disaster on many levels. It's condescending, filled with leftist tropes, unchallenging, hippie-Jesus, about as tasty and satisfying as overcooked pasta with no sauce or butter. Matt Walsh had what I consider to be a very good take on this.

I just don't friend anyone. Less work that way. Who needs friends when you have the internet? I remember reading a bio of Karl Marx where the biographer described Marx by saying something like that he "loved people in the aggregate, but not individually". Sounds approximately 180° (that's π radians for you metric folks) away from how God loves people.

I suppose the good news for fans is that they will be allowed to spend the eternities pursuing their fond dream. Lord, please spare my children and grandchildren from such.

Can bears climb trees? Let's find out! I'm gonna say yes.

Ftfy.

Thanks, @mordorbund. Very informative. I learned a lot, including that "lowercase" is a verb as well as an adjective.

Why should "free will" mean "unpredictable"? This is not obvious to me.

"...the only true and living Church..." A rifle that fires true is one that, in the hands of a skilled user, will hit the target it is aimed at. Living water is water that flows, that moves, that does not stagnate, that is constantly being tumbled and refreshed by its river bed. The Church's full name is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That last part is vital. Not only do we serve in the kingdom of Jesus Christ under the name of Jesus Christ, but we are required, indeed commanded, to be holy. And who is the Holy One of Israel? That would be Jesus Christ. So we are commanded not merely to do some good works, not only to offer ovations and oblations to the Most High God, but in a real sense, to fulfill Jesus' commandment in Matthew 5:48 and become like God (Jesus) by being perfect: Perfectly sanctified by the Holy Spirit. As I'm sure many of you know, the word Saint comes from the Latin sanctus, meaning holy. The words Sacred, Sacrifice, Sacrilege, and many others arise from this same root, and all have to do with holiness or the desecration thereof. We are to be holy—Saints of the Lord Jesus Christ, achieved through our sanctification by His blood. I think the name of the Restored Church of Christ and the description given of that holy kingdom is one of the most sacred truths vouchsafed to us as Saints. Let us be quick to sing the praises of Zion and very slow indeed to find fault with it or its anointed leaders. In this, I remind myself as much as anyone else here.