Suzie

I'm going to go ahead and throw a few things into the arena.  Some of them might surprise you if you're aware of my political preferences.  Maybe not. But here goes anyway.
I don't understand why we are looking to the scriptures for insight into when "life" begins. Biologically speaking, a fertilized ovum is a living organism. I don't see any room for debate on that, and it has nothing to do with a spirit entering the body. We could even argue that it was alive before fertilization.
So the whole discussion about when "life" begins doesn't have a lot of interest to me. In order to justify the line of inquiry, you are pretty much force to claim some kind of difference between "alive" and "life." Which brings up a lot of interesting academic discussions--somewhere along the line you have to make an arbitrary decision of what constitutes "life." Does that require permanent residence of a spirit? sentience? free thought? moral agency? Regardless of which arbitrary point you choose is going to come with myriad moral implications on how you treat other humans, animals, plants, etc. And to my knowledge, there's nothing in scripture that really guides where to draw that line.
More to the point, the demarcation between "alive" and "life" is wholly uninteresting to me (outside of speculative curiosity). In my life, I've only encountered a very few reasons to warrant pursuing the topic at all. First is people who have lost children to miscarriages and stillbirth.  My heart goes out to these people. They are seeking comfort following a tragedy. These I encourage to believe whatever brings them comfort.
The only other major reason I've encountered for pursuing  justification for their stance on abortion. Some wish to claim life as early as possible to justify bans against abortion. To these, I say "get lost" (but in a kind way). I don't have a favorable stance towards codifying religious dogma into civil law. To those that wish to use a later start to life to say that abortion is ok, I say "shut up" (but in a kind way).  Why should it be any more acceptable to extinguish something living simply because it hasn't yet started "life."  (It isn't, by the way)
I'd be interested in knowing if there are any other ways in which it would be impactful to know when a spirit enters a body. I can't really come up with any, although I'm sure there are some.

I can understand the cops stacking up *if* the classroom was locked, and *if* (like the schools I went to growing up) it had heavy metal doors that would require specialized equipment to penetrate.
To that end, the questions I still have (and for which I can’t seem to find straight answers) are:  
1) Was the classroom door locked when law enforcement arrived, or wasn’t it? (Additionally, my understanding is that a lockdown warning had gone out in the school while the shooter was still outside.  How did he get into the classroom in the first place?)
2)  What windows did the classrooms have, and what efforts were made to either get entry through or get a sniper to take a shot at the perp through those windows?
3)  When LE finally went in to the classroom — how did they get in?  Did they have to break down the door?  If so, did doing so require specialized equipment?  If so—at what point did that equipment arrive on-site, and how many minutes elapsed between arrival and deployment?
4)  Assuming that law enforcement followed standard protocols for when active shooter situation transitions to a hostage situation—a) how did law enforcement know that there were any living hostages left in there at all, and b) did it not occur, either to the analysts who developed these protocols or to the officers on site, that otherwise-saveable wounded victims might bleed out while they were trying to engage in negotiations with a guy who they already knew was perfectly willing to kill children?
5) (not directly related to law enforcement behavior, but still germane) As a state worker I have received several worksite active-shooter trainings, where the standard protocol seems to be run/hide/fight.  From what I can gather, it seems the victims here all defaulted to “hide” and were picked off in their hiding places one by one.  Is that accurate?  If so, why?  What kind of active shooter drilling had the students, and especially the teachers, received?
6) I understand Texas has had a “school marshal” program in place for some time that allows teachers who meet certain criteria to carry.  How many teachers here had that kind of certification; and what did they, specifically, do during the shooting?
 

Good questions. And the answers for both "affirms his unfitness for leadership" IMHO. JAG, I appreciate your take on this because it tells me that even though there are people out there who do support Trump and many of the good things he did, it doesn't mean they are blind followers willing to justify anything and everything.
I don't recall who said it, but a Republican some time ago said something along the lines of "Trump is not part of the Republican party, he IS the Republican party." This level of deification and adulation is extremely concerning.

I got called up about 5 years ago, shortly after being hired by the Child Protection Division, for a jury pool on a juvenile rape case.  Got into the courtroom and it turned out I was casually acquainted with the defense attorney, had argued cases in front of that judge, and had met the prosecutor during a job interview (for which I was not hired) about three months previously.
For some strange reason, neither side wanted me on that jury.  

It has to do with the Irish (or the Scottish, if I'm remembering wrong).
The Irish had this tradition of
1. Shortening names.
2. Replacing a single letter just to make it different.
3. Make adjustments to make it sound cool
4. Add an "ee" sound at the end.
So, William --> Will --> Bill --> Billy
Likewise: Robert --> Rob  --> Bob --> Bobby
For Margaret, they figured a longer name deserves double duty
Margaret --> Mag --> Meg --> Peg --> Peggy.
Sarah --> Sar -->  Sal --> Sally
Remember the Irish think that "Siobhan" is supposed to be pronounced "Shuh-VAHN".

I am in sympathy with much of what you say, but when we talk about committing a crime—crime is determined not just by result, but by intent; and words like “insurrection” have a very particular meaning.  When we throw them around loosely, it makes it that much harder later when we find ourselves up against the real thing but have been dulled to it because of the hyperbolic nature of the last half-century of political discourse (cf “communist”, “fascist”, “bigotry”, “oppressor”, “totalitarian”, “lock her up”, “groomer”, etc).  
Trump should have de-escalated.  He didn’t.  His failure to do so, to my mind, simply affirms his unfitness for leadership.  But was it a product of his specific desire for an armed assault on the Capitol, or was a product of a larger personal flaw that renders “de-escalation” generally contrary to his general nature and character?

Conclusively perhaps not, but the "event" was planned and even promoted online. He knew they were fully armed and his speech did nothing to calm the mob but all the opposite. He wanted support, he wanted people to rile up and stand by him no matter what. He took a very Machiavellian approach "the end justifies the means" and that's a very scary way of thinking and acting particularly if you happen to be the POTUS.
It is the behavior of either a very evil and self-absorbed narcissist or someone who is unhinged or demented. And yet, I feel as though none of this is important because "he was good for the economy". Honestly, I feel as though he can go and commit the most serious crime in front of the whole world and someone will say "but did he really do it? Hmmmm Do we have proof?. Maybe it was a double...those dems again!" or worse: "I don't care about that, look how good our economy is now!".
 

To clarify, I’m riffing on the suggestion upthread that the congresscritters are deliberately refusing to call the people who were actually in the car, and saying that the notion (fictions or otherwise) of doing so is mind-boggling.

I agree with most of your post. I was actually surprised that Hutchinson's testimony about the steering wheel incident wasn't challenged or questioned as it should (giving the magnitude of the situation). Having said that, it was hearsay so I don't think she could have said anything more than what she already shared. In my view, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if Trump did it. The other statement about Trump knowing fully well that the mob was armed and STILL didn't think it was a problem because "they aren't here to hurt ME" is what I found the most disturbing.
I cannot dismiss his behavior as "stupid", I think he knew exactly what he was doing. Can smart people like Trump be stupid sometimes? Absolutely. But on January 6, no.

Sure. Most Trumpers are STILL trying to defend the God/Lord/Emperor Trump and pretend that Jan 6th panel is a conspiracy out to get their man. Instead of blaming Trump, they blame the “disloyal” Pence, Barr, etc for not waving a magic wand and putting Trump back in office. It’s creepy. The Obamabots scared me with their cult like devotion to Obama. They still do. The Trumpers really scare me. 

Last I heard, 18 kids dead, 3 adults.  The killer is dead. 
I am forcing myself to not become numb at such news.  It's harder every time.

I'm here in *Texas* and the news is flying fast & furious. Give it a few hours for the media to get the facts together.

Guys...I just....can't....
😞
Edit: 18 children now...

Guys...I just....can't....
😞
Edit: 18 children now...

I cannot believe how weak and afraid NATO is coming across! I'm disgusted at the constant "We condemn...." and Biden's empty words. We certainly didn't mind when Poland wanted to send jets but when it meant we would send them to Ukraine, we decided that it wasn't a good idea after all. We are acting like cowards!!! Seriously?! Russia isn't the issue here, the administration is afraid of China.
 

A completely nuke-free world would undoubtedly be a better place, but I think recent events make that dream even more unlikely.  In the current conflict Putin has been immeasurably empowered by his possession of nukes, and Ukraine has been immeasurably hamstrung by the fact that they gave theirs away.  The takeaway here is likeIy to be that unilateral nuclear disarmament is merely a precursor to your own people becoming the victims of theft, rape, and murder by their greedy neighbors while the international community sits on its hands in terror.
I agree re the treatment of Russian nationals.
As for the Russian Orthodox Church:  it’ll be interesting to see what kind of influence they maintain in the next decade.  Obviously I can’t speak with any authority here; but if (as I understand to be the case) they have been in Putin’s pocket and are unqualified cheerleaders for the war, and if the war goes badly . . . Russians have also, in the past, shown themselves adept at directing fearsome temper tantrums towards the Orthodox Church.

I would consider this unlikely. No matter what Russian governmental authorities feel about it, the Russian Orthodox church will still fight tooth and nail against it.
I will say this, though: when this is all done and over, please seek out business from (reputable) Russian sources. Russian people aren't all that different from Ukrainians.  All of the good and glorious things we are seeing from Ukrainians that we keep praising, the Russians share all of those traits. They are going to suffer enormously from this. They are collateral casualties in an economic war to end a military conflict. I hope we are as generous to the Russian populace after this as we are to the Ukrainian populace.

I can't speak with any authority, but I would guess the countries bordering Ukraine are actually more resistant to direct confrontation than you might think. 
All indications I'm getting from this are that none of this makes any sense.  Russia can't reasonably expect to maintain the territories they've captured so far; the occupying force they would need to take and hold these parts of Ukraine is estimated to be somewhere in the vicinity of 500,000 troops.  This is not the work of a rational actor. Which means you have a mad man with a personal vendetta and no clear successor sitting on top of a nuclear arsenal. Given the increase in soviet era tactics (amp up the annihilation and try to break the people), I have genuine fears that we're going to see a tactical nuke go off in Kyiv if Putin can't take it. 
The big fear on NATOs end is that a direct intervention accelerates Putin's anger. Poland doesn't want tactical nukes going off in Lviv, Rivne, Lutsk, or Ivano-Frankivsk.
The sickening and heart breaking thing about this is that the best possible outcome is for the Russians to topple Putin on their own*. The massive and rapid increase in sanctions works toward that goal. Regrettably, we have to infuriate them and turn them against their government. Unfortunately, there are no sanctions we can impose that will do this quickly.  The wealthy and middle class in Russia are certainly feeling the affect of sanctions pretty quickly, but the lower class  (which is quite large) won't feel the pinch for weeks. 
What we are witnessing right now is the nightmare scenario of autocracy in the nuclear age.  And, to make a political statement, it speaks to the dire need to eliminate nuclear weapons for the world wide arsenals. 
 
* And lets be honest--when it comes to toppling brutal dictators, the Russians are the pros.

I wonder if some countries that might otherwise be inclined to do more (Poland, for example) are actually being hamstrung by their NATO membership; since the western countries would be dragged into a war if Russia chose to retaliate.  Is the USA leaning on eastern NATO countries to do less than they want to do?

Kiev is the Russian transliteration. I strongly encourage you use the Ukrainian pronunciation. 
 
It's just Ukraine.  Prepending "the" comes from the Russian custom of speaking of Ukraine as if it is property. 
 
Regarding nuclear threats
I suspect the reasons we are seeing sanctions and arms flow so rapidly at the moment is that there has been a fundamental shift in how the intelligence apparatus is viewing Putin.  Up until this point, I believe he's been viewed as a rational actor; that he's been taking calculated steps toward a goal of weakening NATO and the EU enough to make it possible for the Russian government to expand its sphere of influence further toward restoring the same order that existed at the height of the Soviet Union.  My general impression was that the Russian military hasn't posed a serious military threat (and the last week has confirmed that). Viewing Putin as a rational actor puts all the saber rattling into a frame where it was plausible to think that the goals were buffer zones and access to resources (The Black Sea has a lot of untapped natural gas, and Sevastopol is a valuable asset for the Russian Navy). 
Putin's speech last week justifying the invasion where he effectively declared that Ukraine had no right to exist outside of Russian control popped a few eyes open. We can debate whether or not Putin has been a rational actor previously (it's possible that he has) but that speech was not the speech of a rational actor. This seems personal. If you pivot your interpretive lens to use the irrational actor mode, this gets very scary. If the Ukrainian invasion is irrationally motivated, the amount of resources he is willing to commit to the project increase dramatically. 
The irrational actor lens explains a lot about why Germany changed their tune on SWIFT sanctions so rapidly. The sanctions imposed yesterday cut off access to a lot of the Russian governments financial reserves. While it will hurt the global economy, it is going to devastate and crush the common Russian citizen. Already, the ruble has fallen to its lowest point in history. This creates civil and domestic unrest in Russia, which has already been mounting since the invasion started. 
Putin seems to be executing a personal vendetta* and his grip on power is slipping domestically. If this is true, there isn't much left for him to lose, and he may lash out in very gruesome ways.  These could include massacring protestors in Russia, shelling residential targets in Ukraine, etc. At this point, yes, I am willing to believe that he would order a nuclear strike--although I suspect it's more likely that he strikes Ukraine than it is he strikes Europe or the US, but the probability of those events is still higher than zero.
This sounds frightening. At the same time, I'm not overly concerned**, and I would not panic. Putin might be willing to give the order, but I have great faith that the Russian soldiers responsible for executing the order would balk and refuse. I have faith that those that aren't completely disconnected from the rest of humanity will refuse to allow that level of atrocity to occur.
 
 
* my best guess is that, due to his extreme isolation during COVID and reducing his inner circle to just yes-men, he's become somewhat disconnected from reality. I also believe that he feels cheated because the USSR was dissolved before he was able to rise in power. He wants back what he missed out on, and no one has been willing to tell him that won't ever happen.
** I can't say as much for my kids.  My older child got curious and found that the military installation we live next to is on the list of first round targets. It's been fun trying to explain in age appropriate ways that if a full nuclear attack is launched, we won't survive.

My apologies.


 

Thank you @Suzie  

@Jane_Doe First of all, hold on tight because I'm sending a bear hug!
Now, a bit on the topic...we need to take good care of ourselves and it is perfectly okay to say NO. We are first and foremost individuals and we cannot and should not live up to everyone's expectations. First, because it it impossible and second because it is unhealthy. Listen...they can ask you to set 1000000 goals, feed the missionaries every day, go to every single meeting and the list goes on. There is nothing wrong with these requests (*cough* minus the endless meetings) but YOU know your circumstances and YOU (and only YOU) get to decide what you want/need based on your particular situation. You don't have to feel guilty about it or think you're not doing enough. 
Many moons ago, the Bishop called me to "talk" but I suspected he wanted to extend a calling. I was in a very rough spot due to a medical issue with one of my kids. I explained this to the Bishop, who was already aware of it. He nodded his head the entire time. When I finished talking, the only thing he said  to me was: "Wow, sorry to hear this. Anyway, we want to call you as..." FWIW, I'm not saying this to bash the Bishop. I'm saying this to show that companies/institutions/organizations (including the Church) tend to focus a lot on organizational structuring but if you cannot do it, guess what? Then someone else will.
Also (many years ago) I was supposed to meet with a client who scheduled an emergency appointment but I wasn't able to attend because I had to rush one of my children to the ER. Due to the nature of the client's situation, he had no choice but to meet with a former colleague. She wasn't happy at all and she told me about it, not even once she asked about my kid.
These lessons and others taught me that I cannot control what others "say" or their expectations about me BUT I can control what I CHOOSE to do and apply it to my life IF it makes me feel happy, content and fulfilled. And if it doesn't....Well, I CHOOSE not to do it and if someone doesn't like it, TOO BAD.
I hate with a passion ANY workshop/training related to "goals". Such a waste of time!
 
 

@Jane_Doe First of all, hold on tight because I'm sending a bear hug!
Now, a bit on the topic...we need to take good care of ourselves and it is perfectly okay to say NO. We are first and foremost individuals and we cannot and should not live up to everyone's expectations. First, because it it impossible and second because it is unhealthy. Listen...they can ask you to set 1000000 goals, feed the missionaries every day, go to every single meeting and the list goes on. There is nothing wrong with these requests (*cough* minus the endless meetings) but YOU know your circumstances and YOU (and only YOU) get to decide what you want/need based on your particular situation. You don't have to feel guilty about it or think you're not doing enough. 
Many moons ago, the Bishop called me to "talk" but I suspected he wanted to extend a calling. I was in a very rough spot due to a medical issue with one of my kids. I explained this to the Bishop, who was already aware of it. He nodded his head the entire time. When I finished talking, the only thing he said  to me was: "Wow, sorry to hear this. Anyway, we want to call you as..." FWIW, I'm not saying this to bash the Bishop. I'm saying this to show that companies/institutions/organizations (including the Church) tend to focus a lot on organizational structuring but if you cannot do it, guess what? Then someone else will.
Also (many years ago) I was supposed to meet with a client who scheduled an emergency appointment but I wasn't able to attend because I had to rush one of my children to the ER. Due to the nature of the client's situation, he had no choice but to meet with a former colleague. She wasn't happy at all and she told me about it, not even once she asked about my kid.
These lessons and others taught me that I cannot control what others "say" or their expectations about me BUT I can control what I CHOOSE to do and apply it to my life IF it makes me feel happy, content and fulfilled. And if it doesn't....Well, I CHOOSE not to do it and if someone doesn't like it, TOO BAD.
I hate with a passion ANY workshop/training related to "goals". Such a waste of time!
 
 

Hi ThirdHour family.  I need some hugs.
Sorry I've been so quiet lately-- life has been very busy lately.  And more than busy, draining.  There is a lot of good things-- life is factually really good.  My miracle baby boy is amazing, and big girl is learning so many things and growing into an expanding world with incredible flair.  Husband is always the most loving rock. 
On the other hand, work is miserable.  Ultimately this is a dead-end job that is downright taking advantage of me, demanding more and more miracles performed with impossible deadlines.  It makes me utterly miserable-- feeling constantly behind & not good enough, despite me constantly delivering miracles.  I now how much of my self worth & sense of accomplishment I (erroneously) put into my work.  I leave every day exhausted to the bone & wanting to cry.  Encanto's Louisa and I have much in common.
I try to focus on the good things-- that my most important legacy is my family, not work.  Try to leave work pains at work.  Try occasionally to muster the emotional energy & time to do more job applications.  Remember where my true value lies.   Try to remember that I'm a great mom.   Remember the importance of the dat of rest.  Remember Christ & "peace be still".  Trying to stop obsessively thinking I need to constantly be/do/more.    Though... I am so tired and often fail.  Example, I was up for three hours in the middle the night just sobbing & feeling like trash.  
Church lately is NOT helping.  Rather it's actively hurting -- so many lessons on "we need be more productive & make more goals!  Everyone get into groups & declare what new goal you will do this week, and then the group leader will text you tracking your progress.  Remember if you didn't get things done, it's because you need to re-prioritize your life!  Remember this quote from 'Atomic Habits'...."   Over and over again.   And it totally doesn't help that my boss & others are in ward/stake leadership positions.  
I....this is the opposite of what I need spiritually.  I need shelter from the storm & rest, not lectures on doing more.  I....honestly I'm writing this in tears, having had to shut off Stake Conference after more of the same.  I'm just.... so tired.  
Thank you for listening to my story.