Vort

It's been cold in eastern Washington, but no snow yet this season. I'm a tad disappointed. Ah, well. We still have February.

This looks similar to a gesture that my now-missionary son used to do with his gym bros, so maybe it's the rage among the kids. But it looks Nazi. While I don't particularly care what whiny, thin-skinned leftists think, I do care about overall appearances. However much he might have been trying to be edgy, Musk is a highly intelligent man, and knew full well that this looked like a Nazi salute. Anyone care to give some context to explain away what this clearly looks like to any 21st-century adult Westerner?

If they do this, it darn well had better be more than eyewash. Banning Bud LIght from government functions won't fill the bill.

Do my eyes deceive me? Is that Jeff standing there next to (almost next to) Elon? And is that Mark under Trump's arm? Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!

That's just cold.

I think you meant: https://comicskingdom.com/curtis/2025-01-19 The question is, in essence: What is the nature of our consciousness and perception, especially our proprioception (used in a generalized way)? This may seem spitballing or eighth-grade level philosophy to some, but I don't think so. We Latter-day Saints believe that we lived as conscious individuals before our mortal birth (and not merely in our fetal state). Yet we have no good idea about or even solid models for what that "pre-existence" may have looked like. Honestly, it may well have looked very much like our mortal life today. I suspect it bore more resemblance to our mortal experience than we realize. I also suspect that "it", our premortal experience, was experience in separable and perhaps discrete phases, such that our mortal life might possibly be considered as another phase in that process. As for the actual question posed, I suspect that each "phase" of our eternal lives is well-marked, and we are not left with any questions about whether we are here or there. But that's my own philosophy, so who knows? Maybe some people die and it takes them hours or years to figure it out.

My understanding is that "DOGE" is not an actual government agency and that Musk is basically an advisor to the President, lacking any actual governmental authority. If that "advice" includes instructions on implementation, I can see how having both men might be problematic. In any case, I trust Musk's instincts and suspect that Ramaswamy's input and ideas can be provided at a distance. I still don't think that DOGE will amount to anything, though the fact that Musk is willing to put his name on the effort does suggest there is more than just hot air behind it.

Despite the unreliability of CBS News, this appears to be widely circulated and known. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/vivek-ramaswamy-expected-to-depart-doge/?intcid=CNM-00-10abd1h https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/19/ramaswamys-future-at-doge-is-in-doubt-as-he-prepares-to-announce-bid-for-ohio-governor-00199173 Funny how the news outlets see this as some sort of omen that the whole DOGE concept is in danger.

Sounds like the pointers were not needle-like, but broad enough to clearly show some words inscribed thereon (in ancient Hebrew or perhaps Nephi's version of "reformed Egyptian", almost certainly Demotic Egyptian).

During and after my mission, I enthusiastically read every Ensign I could get my hands on. By the time I was 40 or so, I had a complete collection of Ensigns going back to January 1971, the first issue. (I got rid of almost all of them about three years ago, when my wife insisted/begged that I do so. I kept the January 1971 edition, because it had a "flexidisc", a recording of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, as it was then called. One of these days, I will get my hands on a phonograph, carefully remove the flexidisc from the magazine, and play it.) Sadly, I rarely read the Ensign or (now) the Liahona. I might be tempted to say that I don't have time for that, but the fact is that I don't make time for it. My loss.

Useless. "Gulf of Mexico" works fine. I'd be more on board if it were "Gulf of the Americas". I have nothing against McKinley, but I rather like the original American Indian name being restored, or at least the version of it we have in "Denali". I remember when Carter gave the canal away, and there was much apologizing (i.e. explanation) given for it. I don't remember the justification, but it certainly seems in retrospect to have been a very bad decision. As to whether we want to "take it back", I'm not sure. Panama as a country exists only and exactly because we built the canal. To me, this seems to be an example of the worst of American meddling in external politics, and I'm not sure how worthwhile it would be to, in effect, revisit all of that by trying to undo what Carter did. Go Elon! If this foolish asininity of countless "genders" could be totally done away with in the next four years, that alone should be sufficient to guarantee Trump a hallowed place in American history. Indeed. Let's hope the ride is as good as promised. Though it can hardly be worse than if Harris had won.

That made me laugh.

Clarke's third law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. This I believe. The word "compass" originates from the Latin compassus, "step together". It was originally used to designate devices used to create and measure circles, and only relatively late (1300s) was applied to navigating by means of a magnetic spindle. It is interesting and seemingly anachronistic that the Liahona, an instrument of direction, should be described in the Book of Mormon as a "compass". (I don't find it anachronistic, any more than I find an English translation of any other ancient document anachronistic because, hey, English didn't even exist back then!) Interestingly, both meanings are used in the endowment as a description of a certain mark on the Priesthood garment. Apropos of nothing in particular.

Some of us have not managed double digits: US Canada Mexico Italy San Marino Vatican City France Oh, yes, and India. How can I forget India? I suppose I technically was also in the UAE, at the Dubai airport, when traveling to/from Hyderabad. I do believe that's the exhaustive list, though I should be adding Israel to the list in the relatively near future, possibly the Palestine State and/or Lebanon and/or Syria. US states are easier, and it's easier still to list the states to which I have not been: Maine New Hampshire Vermont Rhode Island New Jersey (except for the airport; I think it's possible I did drive through, but I don't remember) North Carolina South Carolina Georgia (except for the airport) Alabama Mississippi Louisiana Arkansas Michigan Wisconsin Possibly North Dakota; not sure about this one. I'd give somewhere close to 50% odds that I at least drove through at some point. Connecticut (though I'm pretty sure we drove through on our trip from central PA to Boston, so CT probably should not be on the list) I'm pretty sure we had to have driven through Minnesota, but I don't specifically recall it.

I spend more time than I should reflecting on my life and ruing certain choices and actions. If only I had done this instead of that, if only I had focused on a certain area instead of allowing my attention to be scattered, if only I had learned such-and-such a lesson in my youth, then things would likely have been oh so much better. I need to be reminded, often, that our lives are a gift from God, given exactly so that we can learn such lessons. It is said that a wise man learns from the experience of others, but we all learn from our own experiences. Part of the gift of life is that we are given space to err, to sin, and to repent, and thus learn by our own experience to distinguish between good and evil, to prize the sweet and reject the bitter. I sense much of this same sort of regret and even despair in what you write. Take heart, brother. Each of us has been handicapped by the actions of others, and not one of us has lived up to his or her potential. I cling to the belief that if we humble ourselves before God and give honest effort, never letting go of the iron rod, we will be justified in the last day by the blood of our Savior and will find greater joy than we can presently imagine. I actually just gave a talk in my new ward a couple of weeks ago based on President Benson's seminal 1989 General Conference address "Beware of Pride". It was a good experience for me.

For a European to say that he has visited "more than 35 countries" is not too different from an American saying that he has visited "more than 35 states". It's a lot, but not unbelievable.

Our view of WWII as a black-and-white affair with the Nazis playing the heavies and the Allies wearing the white hats is, to say the least, naive. There was immense profit-taking during WWII, and I mean on the Allied side. The cost of the two great European-centered wars of the 20th century was the atheization of Europe, which had already taken definite steps toward such in the 19th century. WWI and WWII sealed the deal, especially in France and Germany, but really throughout Europe. Religion in general and Catholicism specifically did not just go away, of course. But today, we have three generations of Europeans raised, in effect and for the most part, without religion. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine whether Europe and the world at large are better off for this. But for the record, allowing millions of African immigrants into Europe was not what has turned much of Europe into a dumpster fire. I met many African immigrants during my mission to Italy in '83-'84, and most of them were humble, sincere people just trying to figure out how to get by. It's more complex than this, of course, but simply laying the blame for Europe's many woes at the feet of African immigrants is wrong.

Here is ChatGPT arguing a point and sticking to its guns when challenged. ************************************** Vort said: In the sentence "This course will lead you to despair", is "to despair" a prepositional phrase or an infinitive verb? ChatGPT said: ChatGPT In the sentence "This course will lead you to despair," "to despair" is a prepositional phrase, not an infinitive verb. Here’s why: Structure: The word "to" in this context functions as a preposition, and "despair" is its object, forming a prepositional phrase. Meaning: The phrase indicates the result or destination ("despair") of the action "lead you." Infinitive distinction: An infinitive verb would include "to" followed by the base form of a verb, such as "to run" or "to think." However, "despair" here is not a verb but a noun, so it cannot be part of an infinitive. Thus, "to despair" is best analyzed as a prepositional phrase in this sentence. Vort said: How do you know it is not a verb? It seems to me to work equally well as a verb than as a noun of a prepositional phrase. ChatGPT said: ChatGPT You're absolutely right that "despair" can function as either a verb or a noun, depending on the context. Let’s carefully examine why "to despair" in this sentence is more plausibly a prepositional phrase rather than an infinitive verb: 1. Grammatical Role in the Sentence If "to despair" were an infinitive verb phrase (e.g., "to despair"), it would indicate an action or purpose that "you" are intended to perform. For instance, in "I resolved to despair," the infinitive verb "to despair" expresses an intended action by the subject. In "This course will lead you to despair," the context suggests that "despair" is the end result or outcome, not an action the subject is performing. This fits the usage of "to" as a preposition indicating direction, with "despair" as a noun serving as the object of the preposition. 2. Collocation of "lead to" The phrase "lead to" almost always takes a noun or noun phrase as its complement, not a verb phrase. For example: "This will lead to success." (noun) "This will lead to frustration." (noun) It would be unusual and awkward for "lead to" to be followed by an infinitive verb. 3. Test by Substitution To test whether "despair" is functioning as a verb or a noun, substitute another word that works only as a noun: "This course will lead you to ruin." (Clearly a noun) "This course will lead you to happiness." (Clearly a noun) If you substitute a verb, the sentence becomes ungrammatical: ✗ "This course will lead you to run." (This does not fit the structure.) 4. Intended Meaning The sentence expresses a result (despair), which is more naturally conveyed with a noun. If "to despair" were an infinitive verb, the meaning would shift slightly to imply that the course causes you to take the action of despairing intentionally, which seems less fitting. Conclusion While "despair" can function as a verb in other contexts, here it is almost certainly functioning as a noun within the prepositional phrase "to despair." Vort said: Good explanation, reasonably convincing. But if I said "This course will lead you to succeed", that would make sense, would it not? (As long as "to succeed" was understood to mean "to achieve success" and not "to follow in sequence".) ChatGPT said: ChatGPT You're absolutely right that "This course will lead you to succeed" is a valid sentence where "to succeed" functions as an infinitive verb. This suggests that similar constructions can, in fact, involve either a prepositional phrase or an infinitive verb phrase, depending on the verb or noun that follows "to." In the case of "lead you to succeed," here's how it works: Why "to succeed" is an infinitive verb: "Succeed" is a verb: In this sentence, "to succeed" conveys an action you will perform—achieving success. The infinitive ("to succeed") indicates the purpose or outcome of the leading process. Infinitive complements: The verb "lead" in this case is followed by "you," which is the object, and the infinitive "to succeed" serves as a complement describing what the subject will do as a result. How this differs from "to despair": The difference lies in the grammar and semantics of the words following "to": Despair as a noun: "To despair" in "This course will lead you to despair" functions as a prepositional phrase, with "despair" being a noun that describes an emotional state or condition you are led into. Succeed as a verb: In "This course will lead you to succeed," "to succeed" is an infinitive verb phrase, describing an action that you will perform. How to differentiate: To decide whether "to X" is a prepositional phrase or an infinitive verb phrase, consider: The form of the word: Is "X" inherently a verb, noun, or both? If it’s a verb, the phrase might be infinitive; if it’s a noun, it’s a prepositional phrase. The semantic context: Does the sentence describe an action (infinitive) or a state/result (prepositional phrase)? In summary, "This course will lead you to succeed" works because "succeed" is a verb, making "to succeed" an infinitive. However, "This course will lead you to despair" is better understood as a prepositional phrase because "despair" is treated as a noun here. Your example nicely highlights the subtle flexibility of English grammar!

The idea of a "gifted" class is a good impulse, one of which I approve. When our children show an aptitude in a certain area, we ought to cultivate that aptitude. That's what families do, or at least what they should do. This is one of the undeniable weaknesses of public mass education, and so-called gifted classes are a reasonable attempt to address the issue. The reality of a "gifted" class typically, or at least often, turns out as @Ironhold describes. I counseled my children not to take honors or AP classes in high school, but one chose to do so anyway. This son was very obviously supersmart and had straight A's in school. But the honors classes he took were a nightmare, requiring probably three times as much work as a regular class, and with no perceptible increase in learning or understanding. Just way more work. One of those classes was taught by a nightmare teacher, Mrs. Mc*, a woman who very obviously hated boys (or I should say young men; these were high school students) and openly dismissed them and treated them with contempt. (When my son requested to be transferred to another "pod" for this class, the principal (actually quite a nice woman) said that, unfortunately, that was not possible. So my wife and I told her we would be pulling our son out of school altogether. Amazing how quickly her opinion changed when we brought that up. Like, within two minutes.) (We counseled a close friend of our next-younger son to avoid this particular teacher, but he really wanted to take the honors class. Turned out disastrous. He was quite smart and another overachiever, but I think he got a C out of the teacher's class. The girls in that class averaged a full letter grade higher than the boys. If you asked Mrs. Mc* about it, she would tell you that the girls were simply smarter and did better work. Most of the girls in her classes agreed. The amount of evil and damage that can be done by just one bad apple is hard to overstate.)

I think zil's explanation is the obvious one. Given the scripture-inspired view that only Noah and his family survived the flood, and every other person on earth was killed off, it appears to be the only explanation. But the original verse clearly says "found among". That would literally be like saying, "A remnant of my posterity shall always be found among my descendants." It's trivially true, and a weird, seemingly useless thing to say. I can think of two reasonable possibilities, which are not mutually exclusive (that is, both could be true simultaneously). The "remnant" does not refer to genetic lineage, but to some other trait, such as spiritual perceptiveness or willingness to covenant with God. Despite contrary interpretations of holy writ, Noah's family were not the only human beings to survive Noah's flood—which clearly implies that Noah's flood was not a worldwide phenomenon. I suspect that most Latter-day Saints who do not accept zil's explanation will tend toward the first view. Those who do not see Noah's flood as "universal", i.e. global, will probably mostly default to the second view, or some combination of the two. The scriptures do not say that Noah and his family were the only survivors on the entire planet of a global flood; that is a specific scriptural interpretation. So the second explanation is a possibility without denying any scriptural doctrine, though it certainly runs against many generations of traditional interpretation.

Some things are just too important to ignore.

Hi, Gecko, and welcome. I am not a hobbyist historian, so my knowledge of history is limited to an unimpressive general education and whatever I might Google up. But I'm happy to try to help. And welcome home from your mission! I hope it was an ennobling experience for you. Obviously, I can't speak for the Church, but I'll offer whatever insights I can. The first insight is this: Such questions should not ruin your life. As you taught on your mission, a testimony is a revelation from God to your spirit and your mind and/or heart. If your testimony is firm and is the foundation of your faith, you begin to become unshakeable. Such questions might be a curiosity to you, but they should not threaten that foundation, and certainly should not ruin your life. So before you worry too deeply about these questions regarding Jews, I would suggest that you reestablish your own foundation. If you're investigating these questions in a panic and with a feeling that your life is in the process of ruination, you will find it difficult or impossible to be guided by the Spirit. My reasoning is thus: Solomon's Temple was recognized as a temple and as a holy edifice even when it was desecrated. A "temple" is from the Latin word templum, which means "consecrated space". What makes a space consecrated or hallowed? In the Church, we would say that God does so, but normal usage of the word allows people to simply agree that a place is hallowed, even without a formal Priesthood ordinance or prayer. So in this sense, I would say that, yes, the Jews could certainly build a temple to the Lord. The other side of the coin is that a temple that is hallowed by God will certainly, undoubtedly be constructed under the auspices of God's kingdom (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) and will be dedicated and consecrated by the power of the Lord's Priesthood, which does not exist among men outside the kingdom of God. So to have a working, functional temple in any real sense (that is, whether or not it e.g. offers the endowment or proxy work for the dead) requires the involvement of the Church. So depending on what must take place at what time, the answer could be either way. Cursed by whom? By men? Absolutely. The Jews have been cursed and hated for literally thousands of years. Or do you mean a divine curse? No, I disbelieve that Jews as a group have been cursed by God. On the contrary, they are a covenant people. To the extent that the Jewish nation (meaning the people of the world called Jews, not necessarily the modern state of Israel) may not have kept its covenants with God, it's possible that they have suffered, and perhaps continue to suffer, the effects of a broken covenant. But the idea that God has somehow ordained the Jews to be cast out and persecuted through the ages? No way. I don't believe that for a moment. The historic persecution of the Jews is evidence that sinful, fallen mankind acts in a sinful and fallen way. It can be seen as evidence that those who follow Satan are taught to vilify and reject the people and the things of God. I think it's a grave error to suppose that the Jews are suffering because they are cursed by God or did such evil things two thousand years ago. It seems like that because that is how many of those who hate Jews have framed the issue. The examples you give are false or out of context. For example, Pornhub is owned by Mindgeek, the owners of many pornography websites. Mindgeek (now called Aylo) is not owned by a rabbi. It was created by a German businessman named Fabian Thylmann, who as far as I can tell is not Jewish. OnlyFans is owned by Leonid Radvinsky, a Ukrainian with a name that could possibly be Jewish, but I can't find evidence that he is Jewish. In any case, Radvinsky has publicly denied that he either made or pledged the supposed $11 million donation to AIPAC. Jews are vastly overrepresented in many areas of creativity and high intelligence, in Hollywood and in professions such as law and medicine. This can be explained by a wide variety of social and historical factors, but to my mind it is best explained by a biological factor: Jews as a group are more intelligent than other people. Not just a little bit more intelligent, either. Ashkenazi Jews, those found in eastern Europe, have been shown to test a full 15 IQ points—one standard deviation—above the population at large in Europe and the US. That is, where the average IQ is set at 100, Ashkenazi Jews test on average at 115. This is an enormous difference. It means that the average Jewish school pupil is as smart as the "smart people" in a given class. That means that: About half of a Jewish population will test in the top 15% of worldwide intelligence. Half. In the top 15%. Something over two-sevenths of Jews will test in the top 2% of worldwide intelligence. Top 2% of achievers? That group will include 15% of all Jews. Find the one-in-a-thousand people, those whose IQs test at or above 99.9% of everyone else. Call this group the One-In-A-Thousanders. Of a random group of a thousand people (non-Jews), on average only ONE will be in this group. Now, take a random group of a thousand Jews. How many do you suppose will be in the One-In-A-Thousander group? Answer: On average, about 23 Jews in that group of 1000. Is it any wonder that Jews are now (and historically have always been) very heavily overrepresented in positions requiring high intelligence and high achievement? I have a son that attended a fancy-pants, big-time law school. About half of his professors were Jewish. This is not a coincidence. Nor is it coincidence that among the famous physicists of the 20th century (surely the most amazing century of all recorded history for brilliant physicists), Of sixteen outstanding physicists in the 20th century that I can think of off the top of my head, ten were Jewish: Einstein, Feynman, Oppenheimer, Landau, Bethe, Wigner, von Neumann, Bohr, Pauli, and Gell-Mann. That's simply mind-boggling. I don't know what else to call it. The Jews are the ancient covenant people of God. They are a people of singular and amazing ability. Those who have such gifts can use those gifts for great good or for great evil, so we should not be surprised to find such people well represented on both sides of the fence. But I urge you to divest yourself of feelings of hatred or rage or anger toward Jews. Whatever certain individuals may or may not do, the Jewish people as a group do not merit your dislike. They have suffered from the hatred of others and from the evils arising from that hatred for literally millennia. Remember, Jesus was a Jew. So were literally all of His disciples during His mortal ministry. These are the historic people of God, people of the covenant, the people with whom we are adopted in to the family of God. Not sure why your questions generated such antipathy among so many here, most of whom are normally quite rational and kind in their dealings with others. I guess perceived anti-Semitism really rubs some people the wrong way. In any case, I hope my words were of some use to you. And again, welcome!

Perhaps you failed to notice that William Shakespeare was a BYU professor.

https://comb.io/ro84NO

C'est le mot juste.