Just_A_Guy

Senior Moderator
  • Posts

    15583
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    261

Posts posted by Just_A_Guy

  1. 14th Article of Faith:

    “We believe in meetings; we hope for meetings; we have endured many meetings and hope to be able to endure all meetings.”

    As I get older, I find myself having less patience needing more charity for Church leaders who set meetings that have no discernible purpose or do not substantively accomplish the meeting’s stated objectives.  

  2. 11 hours ago, Carborendum said:

    Definition of Usury:

    Looks like it doesn't say anything about compound interest.  It is just "unfair" or "illegal" interest.

    Nothing about compound interest.

    I’m not sure the Hebrew text, or the Jews or Christians who read it up until the last century or two, recognize that distinction.  My understanding is that Christians even into Elizabethan times considered charging interest to be morally suspect, if not exactly verboten (which is why the protagonists in the Merchant of Venice have to seek out Shylock the Jew).  Banking was supposedly one of the few professions open to Jews, because many good Christians just couldn’t imagine earning a living that way.

  3. 8 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

    Yup. She’s a gold digger. Like @Ironhold brought up recently her looks will fade, and then she’ll regret signing a pre-nup when the new husband trades her in for a new model. 
     

    Blunt? Yup. Painfully true? Yup.  

    Just to be a smidge contrarian:  there’s nothing wrong with being a “gold digger” per se.  Women have a right to expect a husband who can support them; and if they are initially a bit unrealistic about the style in which they can expect to be supported—well, if you don’t aim for the moon, you certainly won’t hit it

    The trade-offs, as has been discussed, are positioning oneself in a place where suitable potential mates are actually likely to be; striking the right balance of idealism and realism as one gets increasingly exposed to the dating pool; and in being the sort of wife who’s worth supporting in any kind of style.  

  4. 1 minute ago, LDSGator said:

    I’m playing. I have limited sympathy for those who go to BYU than whine about appearance codes. It’s not like they didn’t know the rules before the game starts.  

    Plus they’re basically getting a $180K education for $24K, with the Church’s tithepayers making up the shortfall.

    The entitlement boggles the mind.  

  5. On 6/13/2024 at 10:36 AM, Carborendum said:

    I disagree.  

    For now, I don't have a complete rebuttal.  But I'll point out the following immediate items:

    Feminism was based on the idea that all women are oppressed by malevolent men.  Solution: Force men to recognize the superiority (no, not equality -- that was a lie) of women.

    MGTOW is based on the idea that women have asked us for so much, and we've given them exactly what they wanted at each step, each generation.  And they still want more.  They want all the results that men have without the sacrifice that men have done to obtain the same thing.  No, we've given up enough ground.  No more.  You want more while giving less?  We're done.

    While, of course, there are good and bad players in the MGTOW movement, the basis of the movement is at least built on truth.  And the solution is done completely without force.  Men are individually choosing to do their own thing.  Meanwhile the feminist movement always demands force be applied to further their movement.

    The one danger I see is that this still contributes to the disappearance of the nuclear family.  And if that's what you're talking about, then I agree.

    I think one of the significant nuances here is that MGTOW aren’t really done with women.  They are done with interacting with women.  They are still straight; and they still largely . . . errr . . . have no problem interacting with images of women.  From an LDS standpoint, rampant porn use and justifications thereto among MGTOW make the movement deeply problematic.

    I think both hardcore feminists and MGTOW have sort of deceived themselves into thinking that the other gender doesn’t have anything they themselves really *need*; and I think generally speaking, folks who embrace this kind of thinking are setting themselves up for a lot of loneliness and frustration later on life (to say nothing of feeding into social dynamics that aren’t conducive to a healthy, harmonious, sustainable society; and especially in an LDS sub-community that lionizes the principles of the Proclamation on the Family).

    One other observation that seems to have some application in response to some of the posts (and I’m sure @LDSGator will note that I’m engaging in a bit of pearl-clutching here):  I was on BYU campus the other day, and the number of apparent-students of both genders who were dressed very much outside the parameters of the Honor Code, really surprised me.  In my day of 2002 (harrumph!  harrumph!) everybody toed the line, at least on campus.  Certainly people have been complaining about “kids these days” for millennia; but at the same time, there does seem to be a higher proportion of modern LDS YSAs who have openly rejected an awful lot of traditional LDS orthodoxy and orthopraxy.  That’s got to make the dating game even harder for the kids who are looking for a truly converted and faithful future spouse.

     

  6. On 6/17/2024 at 9:44 AM, NeuroTypical said:

    No, I don't think any rich guys want to be married to multiple women.  That was sort of a hallmark of LDS polygamy - nobody did it because they wanted to.  They did it because it was commanded of them. 

    I think your real hurdle question is running through the heads of all the rich guys wanting multiple women.  Having multiple partners isn't a thing that needs legalization.  But put 1000 men desirous of such an arrangement in a room, and count the ones who want legally binding marriages with all their partners.  I'm guessing you'd count zero men.  The more rich you are, the less you'd want legal marriage.  

    You can already find guys who are paying alimony to multiple women, married at different times.  I just don't see guys lining up to expose themselves to more of that.  The wife+side chick lifestyle has just too much going for it.

     

    I don’t think modern legal trends make it clear that federal anti-polygamy legislation was unconstitutional (some of the remedies provided by that legislation—denying the vote, liquidating entities that promoted polygamy, etc—sure; but not the notion of the feds regulating marriage itself).  Conservatives were fine with the federal DOMA; and when it was stricken down I believe the grounds had less to do with concerns about federal overreach than that sexual orientation had been deemed a “protected class” and that DOMA failed under an equal-protection analysis.  I believe (going from memory here) that the Reynolds decision said that Congress can pass generally-applicable laws even if they happen to conflict with the mores of individual religious groups; and IIRC that holding still gets cited from time to time in modern cases.

    I do think we are moving towards a society where polygamy is legally tolerated; but I think the route to that will come via federal legislation as a sop to increasing numbers of immigrants from Islamic countries where polygamy is de rigeur.  Even then, the tolerance won’t really be social.  People will still consider it inherently oppressive to/exploitative of women; it’s just that - as is currently the case with other antisocial behaviors - progressives will insist that ethnic or racial minorities be given a pass and that the rest of us must either look the other way or make obeisance for our having caused the situation through our “whiteness”.  

  7. On 6/3/2024 at 9:56 AM, Vort said:

    The US Supreme Court will never review a state-level conviction based on state law. I mean, they could, technically, but I don't think the justices want to muck around in the state's enforcement of their own statutes. In the state of New York, the fix is in. Everyone knows it. Everyone sees it. The officials were literally elected based on their promise to convict Trump of a felony. The corruption is not hidden away.

    They can if it invokes constitutional issues (double jeopardy, for example).  If the state court trial is not fundamentally fair or somehow falls foul of “due process” requirements, SCOTUS can absolutely review it.  That’s why the left is throwing such a hissy fit about Thomas’s and Alito’s supposed ethical violations right now—they want to prep the playing field before the case makes it there.

  8. 3 hours ago, mikbone said:

    Is it normal to have sentencing delayed a month and a half?

    Not licensed in New York and I don’t practice anything like the sort of law being applied here; but criminal sentencing can routinely take months.  In a run-of-the-mill criminal case in Utah the convict would be expected to meet with Adult Probation and Parole, which would do an evaluation and make recommendations to the court prior to the sentencing hearing.  The defendant could then theoretically bring in witnesses/experts to dispute the report and/or submit their own competing report.

  9. In the long term (10+ years), I don’t think Taiwan is defensible by the US against invasion by a peer (or, as the Chicoms are likely to become soon, superior) military power—the geography is against us.  IMHO the US should offer political asylum for any Taiwanese national who wants it; incentivize their tech industries to set up additional factories on American soil, support Japan, South Korea, and Australia becoming open nuclear powers; and scale back our own military engagement in the region.

  10. On 5/17/2024 at 10:47 AM, Carborendum said:

    I'm kinda split on this.

    She does make very good legal arguments.  And if that was the only motivation, then I'd say she's right.  And we ought to look elsewhere.

    On the other hand, she's also making a lot of unreasonable arguments as well.  And this reveals that the motive behind it is clearly prejudicial.  If she was sincere, she would have stopped with just the reasonable legal arguments.

    Because she doesn't, I don't really want to listen to her.

    Anyone wanna summarize the arguments, for those of us without the patience to watch the video?  🙂

  11. I like Hardy a lot.  His “Understanding the Book of Mormon” was illuminative for me.  He was also involved in the Maxwell Institute’s BOM study edition a few years back (which I own and love); I believe the Annotated is an expanded version (but the Annotated uses the 1920-something text whereas the MI edition uses 2013–the Church has stopped authorizing the use of the 2013 text, and the MI edition is now out of print).

     

  12. 8 hours ago, LDSGator said:

    The battlefield hasn’t changed, the right just lost the war. Now, they are pivoting to what you said-which is odd. Generally speaking the right chooses hills to die on and that’s that.  

    Losses inexorably change the nature of the battlefield.  Thanks to inflation fed in part by a labor glut, what was once attainable for the vast majority of families who put their minds to it (specifically, subsisting and even thriving on a single income), no longer is.

    I’m not sure what you mean by pivoting or suggesting that it’s a rare thing.  Every time the left “wins” on a particular issue, they tend to open up a new front; and the right feels it has to fight it.  Got sex ed in schools?  Great, now hide the curriculum from parents.  Got legalized abortion?  Great, now offer it at taxpayer expense and make it legal up to 39 weeks.  Got gay marriage?  Great, now get dudes in drag to do strip shows in schools.  Got legal equality for racial minorities?  Great, now let’s institutionalize reverse-discrimination.  I don’t think the right “pivoting” is odd or surprising at all;  it’s just conservatives trying to conserve.

  13. 10 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

    Forgive my frightful cynicism, but considering that six million Jews were murdered by the Nazis, why is it such an amazing miracle that 85 Americans weren't?

    In one respect it isn’t.  The Americans would likely have made their way to a consulate eventually and found a way out, after a great deal more inconvenience and possibly suffering than they otherwise endured.

    On the other hand, I have a book about the evacuation of the German mission (this one); and those involved recalled some truly remarkable things happening around this time that they could only consider “miraculous”.  Why God would have intervened on such a micro scale to help some relatively privileged people, while allowing enormous catastrophes to play out in the lives of thousands of others, naturally brings us back to larger problems of theodicy and the divine plan.

    (I was going to ask here if it wasn’t a Britisher who coined the aphorism about God for some reason taking especial care of fools, drunks, and Americans; but come to think of it, wasn’t it Bismarck who came up with that one?)

  14. With regard to Pres. Johnson’s Facebook post:  I think the subtext is a recognition that, as @Anddenex suggests, a lot of women have sort of been pulled kicking and screaming into the workforce out of necessity (because their families are grappling with inflation caused by, among many other things, a rising number of two-income families with more disposable income) (and whether President Johnson’s life choices thirty decades ago were part of the problem, is another discussion).  But the crux of her post, as I read it, was “even if you’re working, don’t wait to have kids. You were created to be a parent first and foremost, and you can make it work.”  Which, I think, is a timely message.

    I’ll certainly advise my sons and sons in law to pursue careers that will give them the financial latitude to permit their wives stay home full time.  But I’m not sure it’s desirable—or possible—to have a church where every (or most) adult male clears six figures per year.  If a critical mass of LDS women are going to be establishing careers, then the inevitable next question is “do they have kids sooner, or later?”  And that’s a no-brainer as far as our theology is concerned; and President Johnson is (as President Oaks affirmed) endorsing a proper example in that regard.

    In other words:  The fight over whether mothers should stay home with their children was well-fought and no doubt improved many lives and even saved many souls.  But the battlefield has changed.  The fight now isn’t whether mothers work outside of the home; it’s whether women become mothers at all.  

  15. On 5/6/2024 at 12:33 PM, LDSGator said:

    It is easy for me to say “Go light on Hamas” when I don’t have to worry about getting blown up by terrorists who hate me-but it’s also easy to say “Nuke Gaza” when it’s not my 70 year mother who just got slaughtered in her own home while crocheting. 

    On the other hand, if your 70-year-old mother had voluntarily donated her basement as a place for goons to keep their Jewish sex slave . . .

    We have a strong western tradition of at least giving lip service to the distinction between civilian and military; and the notion that a populace is often not accountable for the acts of its government.  But when you see the public opinion polls about the number of Palestinians (and Palestinian supporters in Europe and the USA) who support the 10/7 attacks . . .

    I don’t know.  It makes me reconsider the OT conquest narratives.  Could it be that sometimes, an entire culture is simply beyond rehabilitation/reconciliation; and for the sake of self defense, all that’s left to do is to give them the most humane death your resources permit?

  16. 12 minutes ago, Maverick said:

    I don't think its simple minded at all. I think it gets to the root of the issue. If we have a "thus saith the Lord" revelation quoting the words of God directly we know that these words came from God. When the president of the church speaks or writes something in his official capacity as church president in his own words we don't know if those words were given to him by revelation from God or if he's just giving his well-reasoned opinion, or somewhere in between. 

    Sure, but having to discern between what words our leaders speak from the pulpit come from God, which ones come from men, and which ones are somewhere in between is a lot different than having a revelation directly from God presented in his own words. There's no question where those words came from then.

    As a matter of mechanics, how do you think the “thus-switch-the-Lord” revelations in the D&C (and for that matter, the rest of canon) were transmitted to their recipients?  Dream?  Waking Vision? Physical material visitation of a divine being?  Audible voice?  Trance?  Specific words coming to to the recipient’s mind?  A image coming to the recipient’s mind, which the recipient then had to articulate in his own words?  Something else?

    Were *all* the “thus-saith-the-Lord” revelations in our canon transmitted through the same method?

    Are you sure?

    How do you know?

    Oh, and on a completely unrelated tangent:  what do you think of Denver Snuffer and John Pontius/Thom Harrison?