Vort

I thought I was being rather clever and insightful when, years ago, I came up with the model of the man as "outward-facing" and the woman as "inward-facing". In retrospect, I guess I was just giving vocal shape to an idea as old as time.

We will be spending Christmas at my son's house in Kansas, with the whole family there other than our youngest missionary in Japan. I'm hoping to see a tornado. What's that? They don't have tornadoes in December? Then I'm not going.

As Elder McConkie once famously observed, "Job is for people who like the book of Job."

The fact that the Lord mentioned Job and his trials when counseling Joseph Smith (D&C 121:10) might suggest that Job was a historical figure. If not for that, I would assume that the story of Job was either an entirely fictional parable with some extended, rambling philosophy attached, or at least that it was a stylized and highly embroidered retelling of an actual kernel event with some extended, rambling philosophy attached.

The tribe of Asher meets second hour on the stage. Please use the metal folding chairs, not the Relief Society chairs.

To assume that the Father, the Greatest of all, Creator of the universe and all things therein, might become so blinded by rage because one of His children referred to His Consort by a nasty name that He might bring down absolute destruction upon their heads, is so absurd (and frankly bizarre) that I'm not even sure how to respond to such utter nonsense. I guess I'll write a response detailing how the idea is so bizarre and nonsensical that I can't think of how to respond. Yeah, that should do it. I'll give that a shot.

What you say might be true insofar as we understand how things work—I happen to agree with the gist of what you wrote—but I think the expression of those ideas is completely wrong-headed. This is the kind of thing that causes other Christians to look askance at the Church and think of us as cultists. Not that I give much mind to what other demoninations think of us, unless we're giving them good reason to question our devotion, which in this case I think we are. "God" is not a position one fills by qualifying through a checklist of requirements. God is a divine Being, Father of all, Creator of all. We reverence His name and speak of Him only in holy contexts. Disputing about whether Jesus was or was not married based on a list of sine qua nons for Godhood is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing.

Hmmmm. Vote for a guy who committed adultery for cheap thrills (basically 98% of everyone in DC) or vote for someone who lies about her ancestry expressly for political gain. Tough, tough call. Oh, wait. No, it's not. Bull crap. The liars in the media, along with the liar AOC, claimed ten dead. In fact, four people died, all Trump supporters. Two died from heart failure. One died from drug misusage/overdose. One died from being shot by Capitol police while trying to enter through a window, an event that I remember exactly zero conservatives or Republicans decrying. Your narrative of an "angry mob" seeking to overthrow the Constitution is a lie. The fact that the lie is promulgated by mainstream media doesn't make it any truer. Pointing this out just in case objective truth is important to you. Have you ever stopped to consider why you will "take the fake Indian"—or for that matter anyone else—over Trump? You're an atheist, so adultery per se can be of no moral consequence to someone like you. Yet you cite that as a motivating factor behind your blind hatred of Trump. You should go someplace quiet for a few days and look into your soul (or the atheist equivalent thereof) to find out why you jump so willingly onto the antiTrump bandwagon. (Spoiler: I suspect it has little to do with sexual morality, personal liberty, or national security, and everything to do with a social agenda you want to further.)

Vintage leftist viewpoint. SMH.

Let's see. That's the one who tried to gain votes by pretending that she was part American Indian, right?

I don't think so. From what I've seen, there's no embarrassment or any sign of self-awareness at all.

Dorky Nebbish Faces Existential Dread -Summary of every Woody Allen movie

With Woody Allen? Impossible!

*sigh* I used to be a 29 waist. That was back in high school, when I weighed 165. They were definitely not the good old days, but I wouldn't mind borrowing my 18-year-old self for a few weeks.

Does impeachment in Korea necessarily mean a removal from office?

Funny thing about the rare earths is that they aren't really all that rare, at least as far as their abundance in the earth's crust goes. Rather, they're difficult to refine using traditional methods. Chemically, the rare earths are the lanthanides, the upper line of the two lines of elements you often find included at the bottom of a chart of the periodic table. In addition, scandium and yttrium are usually included as rare earths, because they're chemically similar. (Scandium is a lightweight metal, the first of the so-called transition metals, just heavier than calcium and just lighter than titanium. Yttrium is the element in the same "family" as scandium, but one heavier; that is, one line below scandium.) Why are the not-particularly-rare rare earths so valuable? It turns out that these elements just happen to have a lot of valuable properties between them. Cerium and yttrium are valuable for optical properties and polishing. Lanthanum turns out to be very useful in various metal hydride batteries. A great example is the superstrong permanent magnets that have become widely available since around the early 1990s are made primarily of neodymium as well as praseodymium and dysprosium to improve performance. As for the distinction between rare earth minerals vs. rare earth elements or metals, I don't believe there is a functional difference in meaning. If Trump wants to protect domestic sources of rare earth minerals, he probably is not going to be thrilled about openly giving away or selling the refined forms of the elements (which are metals). I actually think such protectionism is a wise idea; I have been shocked that it has taken China as long as it has to clamp down on exporting rare earths and other such things.

Agreed. We don't want to get into a, um, urination match with China. Dealings with China, whether economic or military, should in every case be based on solid principles and should be entered into only with full expectation of doing whatever it takes to make the effort work. Trade war? If that's what you really think is best, then go for it. But you had better not back down or get weak-willed about it. You had better get all your allied nations involved. You have to be willing to walk the walk. That's probably true in any case, but it's doubly true with China.

The short of it is: If one is from the Han people, ethnically and culturally, then you are approximately correct. As long as you do what you're "supposed" to do (according to Chinese custom), you'll probably be okay. If one is not ethnically and culturally Han, then no such protection is guaranteed. If you are not Chinese, your supposed "rights" are completely at the whim of the CCP and its operatives, which generally means that you lose. Chinese courts, for example, pretty much always side with the Chinese side in any dispute, no matter how obvious the deception or IP theft on the part of the Chinese company.

Chinese "law" is a funny (read: deeply corrupt) thing. If you think US laws are applied haphazardly and with prejudice, you ain't seen nothing until you've seen Chinese law.

Never heard of AMAC, but it can't be worse than AARP.

Please point out in your above quote where Elder McConkie identified a mistaken policy decision or false revelation by Brigham Young. You think that Jesus Christ judges comments based on how "racist" they are? Tell me, what does Jesus consider as a "racist comment"? What are the hallmarks of such a comment? Is it possible that Jesus judges individuals rather than comments? Is it possible that the appellation "racist" can ultimately apply only to human beings and not to sequences of sound waves or letters? And yet here you are.

@zil2 shouldn't be laughing at that. That was a joke that only men should understand.

Sara Carter agrees. Whoever Sara Carter is. https://saraacarter.com/cnn-and-msnbc-just-got-beaten-in-the-ratings-by-the-hallmark-channel/ EDIT: Apparently based on The Gateway Pundit, which was based on a Forbes article. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/11/how-awkward-cnn-msnbc-just-got-beaten-ratings/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/maryroeloffs/2024/11/27/heres-a-supersized-guide-to-all-32-new-hallmark-holiday-films-as-kansas-city-chiefs-movie-premieres-saturday/

That's what I have dreamed of: To have the best possible view of men's bathrooms. Just thinking about it makes a shiver run down my spine.

The problem in this discussion is that we are not in a court of law. We're in a discussion group. More importantly, we are a part of God's kingdom. In looking for answers to why such-and-such occurred, the most relevant piece of information is what our current leaders say about things. As far as I know, our current leaders do not subscribe to the current fad of calling Brigham Young a racist and saying that the whole Priesthood ban was just a big mistake. I see exactly zero evidence of any such belief. On the other hand, nor do our current leaders subscribe to the explanations given in the past that attempt to explain or quantify the reasons for the Priesthood restrictions, such as "curse of Cain" or "lack of premortal valor". On the contrary, they have explicitly distanced themselves ("disavow" is the word used) from such explanations, and have instead clearly stated that we do not know the reasons for instituting the Priesthood ban. On an institutional level, this is clearly the case: We don't know why the Priesthood restrictions were enacted. On a personal level, I suppose that God can make known to whomever He chooses whatever He deems fit, so there are perhaps some who understand God's reasoning and actions on a deeper level. But such people are under commandment to keep their private revelations private, so their presumed knowledge does not change the situation. I will continue to argue, forcefully and vociferously, against the ill-considered and even traitorous practice of labelling our Church leaders as racists and otherwise seeking the approval of the world—ironically and fittingly, an approval that would never come unless we literally left all truth behind and simply bowed to the world's will. On the other hand, I will not accept poorly documented opinions as the word of God. What I will accept as the word of God is what our current leaders, those anointed by God to lead His kingdom, have to say. And what they have said is not that those of black African descent before 1978 had no ability to hold the Priesthood. The opposite appears to be the case; for example, no one disputed that Elijah Abel held the Priesthood, only whether or not he should exercise the rites of that Priesthood he held.