Vort

RIP. I suppose it's appropriate that he died while a Democrat was president. Not a very effective president in my estimation, but seemed like a truly decent human being.

I sometimes rue my fate of being born after the period where hat-wearing was a practice. (Real hats, not baseball caps.)

I loved Utah. I loved living there. I loved the land, I loved the weather, and I very much loved the people. But one of the things I most definitely did not love was the widespread idea voiced among the Saints of whether one would "make it into heaven", as if exaltation and eternal life were a prize awarded to those students who scored best on their homework and exams. As much as I dislike and disagree with the non-Mormon caricature of Latter-day Saints as people who somehow believe they're earning their way into heaven, I have to admit that doctrines like "making it into heaven" very much give that appearance, and probably mindset.

I think fence-sitting is sometimes the only honest alternative, when you have no good way to distinguish between two possibilities. Fence-sitting gets its well-deserved bad reputation from people who ignore or even reject what should be solid evidences of truth because they're more concerned with their reputation or what their friends think of them than they are the truth.

Because unbelievers seek to establish that "miracles" are just normal (if rare) occurrences, while believers seek to establish that there's a clear way God might accomplish some miraculous thing, and therefore it's reasonable to believe. Latter-day Saints are especially interested, because we believe God to be a God of Laws, a Being that works within the laws that He has established (or perhaps that are eternally self-existent, as He, and we, and the elements themselves are -- depends on the Latter-day Saint what the particular belief trying to be justified is). Somehow, finding a possible non-supernatural explanation makes things more believable. Or something. Which is not unreasonable; just think of how far scientific endeavors would have gotten had every question been answered, "Because that's the way God created things." It's a true answer of absolutely zero explanatory value.

Through the centuries, all sorts of scientific and pseudoscientific explanations have been attempted for the new star at Christ's birth. None of them has proven particularly convincing. The ancients knew of comets, so surely a comet would be called such and not by the more generic term "star". Plus, comets were typically seen as evil omens, not heralds of Godly doings. But a "new star", bright enough to be noticed by most people (with decent eyesight), could have been the result of any number of events, such as a distant supernova or even the "unveiling" of a nearby asteroid whose albedo suddenly increased and remained easily visible until "reveiled". The Nephite night of brightness is not so easily hand-waved away. Note that during the day, even if the sun is hidden behind a cloud or a hill or something, it's still very bright outside. The sky itself is a bright azure color that lights the world for us, as much as or perhaps in some cases moreso than the immediate brightness of the sun. I could imagine some sort of atmospheric interplay, something perhaps akin to the aurora borealis, that kept the sky bright even after sundown. Pure speculation, of course. No scriptural account talks of a "second sun" or anything like that, so the bright sky idea appeals to me.

That's a moving picture.

I don't believe I was ever an actual Never Trump-er, but I was very much against Trump in 2016. I believe the only concession I made was that, if forced to choose, I would vote for him over Hillary. (<sarcasm>Huge concession </sarcasm>) As it was, I voted for Pothead Johnson, a badge of shame I will always secretly wear. Perhaps surprisingly, it was not a reaction to the incessantly and ridiculously negative press coverage. Though the over-the-top, nonstop criticism did not have the desired effect on me--if anything, it might have made me more receptive to the idea of reconsidering my negative opinions on Trump--I am not enough of a reactionary to vote for someone I detest just because someone writes something stupid. Rather, to my surprise and pleasure, I found out that Trump, for all his nonstop bloviating and desire to stir up contention and put a thumb in his opponent's eye, was a remarkably effective president who did a whole lot of very good things, more than any president since Clinton, probably since Reagan. His results, rather than his persona, converted me from an antiTrumper to someone who voted for him in both 2020 and 2024. If I was not exactly an enthusiastic Trump supporter, and was and remain a reasonably solid supporter. I didn't vote for him despite misgivings; I voted for him because he was not only the clearly best choice we had, but he was actually a pretty darn good choice. At least, so it seemed (and seems) to me. It's entirely possible that I misread your meaning here, but the bolded wording is what raised my eyebrow. It's not uncommon for people (in both polarities) to suggest that people on the "other side" must be mentally ill to believe what they do. It's wrong and disgusting no matter who does it. Yes, I'm mentally ill. I have not been shy about that since it nearly killed me two years ago. Okay, I can see that. I retract my wording. I did not mean to imply any such personal, pointed, nasty insult, and if that's how it came across, then I apologize sincerely. My derision was toward leftist thought or what often passes for it, which I consider to be often twisted and sometimes delusional, but not toward you personally, and certainly not toward any mental illness you may deal with. I agree with you. Merry Chrismas to you, PP, sincerely.

Because I was born in the state, and the eastside of Seattle was my home for nearly 30 years before my recent relocation to the eastern part of the state. Not everyone has the means to move away from places they no longer like (or, in my case, places that no longer like them). And not everyone has the inclination to leave behind friends, scenery, and haunts that have been their home and formed an important part of their lives for decades.

Have I written anything to suggest I don't still hold that view? You are looking in a mirror. PP. That is almost exactly the entire content, top to bottom, of pretty much everything you post. For example, take a look at the post I'm quoting you from. "I hate Democrats, but they're a far sight better than Republicans." I'm not really a Chevy guy. You're saying I don't discuss the merits of positions? Hmmmm. Methinks you need to read a bit more carefully. And your example of my supposed "insult" is laughable. Are you or are you not leftist? Do your posts reflect the functioning of your mind or do they not? I thought your post was a very typical example of how leftists think. How could any reasonable person consider that insulting? Or are you proclaiming that leftists such as yourself are not reasonable, and that it's insulting to point that fact out? I somehow don't think that was your meaning, but that's the only way I can figure out how highlighting your post as a typical example of the functioning of the leftist mind could be construed as insulting per se. My behavior toward you through the years and especially the last several months has often been less than above reproach, which I have admitted and even apologized to you for. To put it in leftspeak, something about your arguments and presentation triggers me, and I can only sit quietly for so long before I feel the burning need to point out inconsistencies and prevarications. That's my fault, not yours. But your condemnation of me and pretense to being offended because I'm so nasty to you is tissue-paper thin. Your previous post (the one to which I'm responding) really speaks for itself in this regard.

One of us has never lived in Seattle. And I disbelieve that Seattle is far outside the norm for urban/lefty places.

What on earth could possibly be considered offensive about saying "binders full of women"? That was manufactured outrage, pure and simple. That wasn't even an example of condeming a man for a word. That was literally making up an offense as an excuse to criticize, perhaps the single most dishonest criticism I have ever heard made of a politician. "Binders full of women" moving people to outrage is positively unhinged—or cold, calculated cynicism. Insanity or evil, take your pick. I vote the latter. Modern "liberals" are not liberal at all, in any real sense. They call themselves "progressive", another shading of truth. In reality, there is nothing "progressive" about them. They seek to undermine institutions. Some institutions deserve to be undermined, but many are absolutely vital for a healthy and functioning society. Example: Heterosexual nuclear families. We should be going to any length to protect, defend, and encourage the heterosexual nuclear family. Those who call themselves "progressive" are dead set against such heterenormativity, to the point that they consider the word "heteronormal" to be an insult. {Fact: Heteronormativity is the key to human survival from generation to generation.} So you hate, loath, and detest George W. Bush because...he enacted steel tariffs? That's unbalanced.

Pam getting ready for the big birthday bash!

Yeah...no. In 2016, the whole noise from the entire left was a coronation of Queen Hillary as The Woman Who Shattered The Glass Ceiling. Delusional? You bet. Cynical? Not at all. They most sincerely wished to lecture all who didn't vote for Hillary as to their ignorance. Much the same as in 2020 and, especially, 2024, except that their hatred and bile were completely undisguised this time around. Their cynicism arises exactly and only from the fact that they lost. And don't pretend that it was losing to Trump that did it. Trump is by far the Left's favorite whipping boy, but had any other Republican won in Trump's place, the reaction would have been identical. Remember Bush's and Romney's treatment at the hands of the Left. The Left is cynical because it is not being allowed the powers of kingship that it desires above all else. Another false rewriting of history. Romney was savaged by the Left almost as badly as Trump, often with untrue statements or misrepresentations and always with undiluted bile. And Powell? Does the phrase "Uncle Tom" ring any bells? For the Left to look back on history and claim with a straight face that they respected either Romney or Powell is a lie so transparent as to be simply laughable. An overstatement regarding all three, though I concede that Romney's mealy-mouthedness has cost him the respect of many conservatives and Republicans in general. Would Romney have beaten Kamala Harris in a general election? I think possibly so, even with the press solidly against him, but only because Harris was such an absurdly flawed candidate. Romney's two-facedness, whether real or perceived (or more likely some combination of the two), has not done him any favors in his national perception.

I often respond to what was said without consideration (or realization) of who said it. I'm getting better about that, but it still occurs from time to time.

My apologies for being so slow on the uptake. I completely missed the irony (still do), and such proclamations are not unknown on this list.

Then why do you call yourself a Latter-day Saint?

Poor Tulane.

Silent Letter Day, aka Middle English.

Mahujah Nahom Pahoran Joseph Smith was insanely lucky with names.

Is incest per se evil? I think not. It's just defined as sexual relations between "close relatives". I don't understand why this idea would even possibly be considered objectionable. In addition, Adam and Eve were the first man and first woman, where we are defining "man" and "woman" as, essentially, Adam and Eve and their progeny. We are all children of Adam and Eve, meaning they show up in everyone's ancestry. But (non-doctrinally, same caveats as Carb gave) that does not mean that Adam and Eve were the first Homo sapiens to walk the earth, or that they were the only Homo sapiens on the planet. The scriptures make a big deal about So-and-so being a literal descendant of Noah. Whu...? How is that a distinguishing characteristic, if everyone died in the Flood except for Noah and his family? And more to the point: If someone was not a lineal descendant of Noah, who were his ancestors? I understand that many Saints in the past and even today harbor suspicion and doubt (or outright rejection) of what they consider to be the dangerously false idea of organic evolution. I will just point out that, if we accept a wider interpretation than the so-called literal interpretation of Genesis (which is nothing of the sort), then Adam and Eve and the garden in Eden can be fitted very nicely with the precepts and literality of organic evolution of human beings. Some are threatened by this idea, and that's fine. The leaders of God's kingdom have not seen fit to instruct everyone to accept organic evolution, or any other scientific theory or model that I can think of, so at this point it's pretty clearly not an overtly spiritual issue. But when we get into weird discussions like "Adam's and Eve's children must have intermarried, brother and sister! Ewwwww!", I think it's time to take a step back and clear our heads.

Probably a whole lot less than half the theoretical upper limit. That's like saying that an average woman can have up to eight children, so therefore a group of four couples could produce a population of over 8 million people in ten generations. Basically, no way.

Now there's a guy who got the screw by the media and whose current historical image is thereby tainted.

I believe that's true, but only because there has been a sea change in the position of Democrats on various issues. Such ideals as patriotism and anticommunism used to be widely shared American values, not the province of any single political party. JFK surely was more "conservative" than modern Democrats—conservative in the classic sense, someone who understands that what we have received from our parents is a sacred and valuable treasure that needs to be defended every day. In that sense, you could argue that JFK was more "conservative" in some ways than most modern so-called conservatives. But—and here's a controversial opinion for you—I believe that Nixon would have been a better president to elect in 1960. For all his imperfections, I believe that 1960 Nixon was a more virtuous leader (and certainly a more faithful husband) than JFK. Kennedy's win was IMO largely due to his immense popularity with the media, especially compared to Nixon, whom the media detested. Nixon's infamous whining about "you won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore" was not without solid basis. And while I'm not going to defend Nixon's indefensible Watergate woes, I think you would have to be terminally naive to believe that only Nixon (or only the Republicans) was/were playing that game. If you believe that LBJ was not at least as corrupt as Nixon, probably far moreso, then I would suggest that you have no idea what was going on back at that time.

I've mentioned my father-in-law before, how he was one of the best men I have ever known. He would sing the hymns, strongly if not exactly loudly, singing and shouting his praises to his Father. He could not carry a tune in a bucket. But he sang anyway. From my father, I learned the beauty of the human voice. From my father-in-law, I learned that God finds beauty in those who sing His praises, even if they may not have as beautiful a voice by our mortal standards as we might wish. To God and to my wife, and frankly to me, my father-in-law's voice was beautiful.