mordorbund

(Not necessarily for Carb, just spring boarding here). This is actually what prompts my question. When the medium gets in the way of the message the medium gets supplanted (when the medium is the message then then the people get supplanted). As far as the Church goes, the Bible is valuable “as far as it is translated correctly”. It may be worth reading as a window to an ancient people, poetry and story telling, or as protolanguage of the early states, but I think the Church uses the KJV 1) to inform modern Saints about God’s dealings with other covenant people and 2) to preserve a context for the revelations of the Restoration (including the Book of Mormon). Other churches have shown that the first goal can be met if the scholars are kept in control or the leaders provide sufficient commentary to control the laity’s understanding. We could work with the NRSV if we want to stay close to our roots. The second goal is difficult with any other translation. As @Just_A_Guy noted some of the phrases and passages in the have meaning because of their intertextuality with the KJV. If we switch to a new translation would it be best to also update the language of the other scriptures to match? Or should the Church treat the context as already lost and cut it loose?

There’s actually another question which I really want to discuss but I wanted to make sure we think through and appreciate what we have. Why do you suppose the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints uses the King James Version of the Bible? It was popular in Joseph Smith’s time, but why has it continued to be used? Keep that response in mind as you answer the following: What does the next LDS edition of the Bible look like? How will it keep those aspects you described above while keeping the text approachable for a new generation?

Avatar checks out.

I’ve written before about the priest-king model I think of with the Nephites. With that background, here’s my take: Not so. Many ordinances were the same, but they may not have had the same offices we do. There’s no indication of a First Presidency for instance. The relationship between the church and state are definitely different. Alma had church authority in the land of Nephi under King Noah. When he began to do something similar in the land of Zarahemla he could only do so with permission from Mosiah. Any church operating needed the king’s permission, and if it was the king’s church it needed his approval. I do think your comparison with the modern church has similarities. I already have authority to baptize, but may only do so when authorized by a bishop. Mosiah Some speculation on my part, but I wonder if this was a way of appeasing the precursor to the king men. By appointing Alma high priest (who then ordains his son as successor) Mosiah may be appeasing future kingmen by creating a role similar to the Levitical order that largely functions apart from the monarchy. In another post I’ve added the following:

Twice a year Grandpa would close the windows and spread fresh horse manure on the lawn. Kept the grass green and the neighbors away.

I think the Interpreter Foundation had an article with some overlap several years back. My Google fu is not powerful enough to find it but the gist was that the scriptures elsewhere contain the phrase “rod of iron” and while it may be a scepter, staff, or crook, only Nephi gets us thinking about it as a handrail. The author then explores some literary implications that follow if we adapt these other meanings.

I’m an hour away in northern Virginia. Depending on when you’re here you might be able to make it to the DC Temple open house* or a fireside my stake is putting on about the history of the DC Temple. *Tickets are required but they are free. The American History Museum has a sunstone from the original Nauvoo temple.

This chapter has some good things too. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-27-work-and-personal-responsibility?lang=eng Doesn’t count. Also, retired people are under severe condemnation.

Here’s a site that compared the best of high school boys versus the best of Olympic women in track and field events: https://boysvswomen.com/ The Olympic athletes don’t fare well.

Maybe they shouldn’t make it so tasty….

I bet those replacement gramps are missing that sweet sweet Q&A cash.

And I applaud you and your fellow mods for keeping this site clean this way. It makes it a really enjoyable experience to come on here when I’m taking a break from working on my home computer where I just made $19410 on the last three weeks. Everyone is able to get this easy work. Message me and I’ll send you the link for rewarding successs!

Interesting…

In fairness, consider the sort of mother who rears a child into a law career….

I gave you a trophy but the emoji says it’s “thanks”.

1760 yards/mile 5280 feet/mile 63360 inches per mile Nice whole numbers. 2.54 centimeters/inch 3.78 liters/gallon Tell me again about nonsense calculations.

Growing up, the kids would work a puzzle while the adults watched football or just chatted. At some point a group would rally for flag football. If any of those ran out there was always some adventure in the woods.

I would love to see it happen, but I don’t see it happening (I would love to be wrong). The article provides for the possibility that it be overturned based on two related options. Precedent can be ignored if 1) there is a previous precedent that fits better, and/or 2) the current precedent is so gerrymandered that continuing to apply it in future cases loses predictability (stability). I wish the article included more detail on what he thinks the previous precedent is (or is it implied that this isn’t really an option and I missed it?) and how future applications of Roe and Casey are untenable. As for the 3/6 prognostication: the insurance tax known as the Affordable Care Act still stings too much for me to count on Roberts upholding the doctrine he previously espoused; even at his nomination I don’t think anyone pretended Kavanaugh was a Gorsuch or Scalia; and Barret was asked multiple times about vacating Roe and it will echo into future nominees and hearings if she does (not to mention what congress may try when they consider phone calls and rallies impeachable offenses).

I find it extremely dangerous to allow third parties to extrapolate a legalistic framework for your religion (or more accurately in this case, for your acts of conscience) and bind them on you.

Useless navel-gazing.

I like Beauty and the Beast. I love the addition of If I Can’t Love Her. Gaston’s Me song is fun. Human Again can be cut as far as I’m concerned though. And Be Our Guest is well executed as a larger than life dance number (with such costuming!). I also enjoyed The Lion King. The puppetry is great! He Lives in You is a great addition to the music. I’ll admit that there’s a number of songs that don’t contribute to the narrative, but I chalk that up to world building. My kids enjoyed Aladdin but I would rather just watch the movie again. They added three sidekicks and, in Disney fashion, made them the comic relief. But Genie is already there and he is THE comic relief, so the three goofusses got tiresome quick. None of the new songs really did it for me, and they added Bollywood dancing but kept the same music so it just looked out of place for me. And the showstopper Prince Ali seemed small scale because it struck me obvious that the cast cycled through multiple times to simulate a long parade. Prince of Egypt has been put on the West End (Broadway UK). It’s written by the same fellow that did Wicked (but he also did Godspeed, Pippin, and Pocahontas, so…). One of my biggest problems with the original was that the plagues did not go on long enough. The song should emotionally wear you down (or Pharaoh at the very least) and it was cut short while I was still jamming. I hope he’s extended that song. I’ve heard Footprints in the Sand and I enjoy it. So I’m tentatively hopeful for the stage version (also, how you gonna part the sea? Please tell me you’ll flood the stage!) Oh yeah, somebody mentioned Something Rotten. If you’re thinking about going to that you’ll probably enjoy Spamalot. It’s Monty Python’s Holy Grail on stage. They sing the love song fully self aware that it’s part of a musical, included the nostalgic Always Look on the Bright Side of Life, and added a surprisingly profound (and witty) song about being all alone collectively (and with squires at their side). My brother’s a Beetlejuice fan so he’d probably enjoy the musical, but it’s not my cup of tea.

If California can close centers for addicts Hobby Lobby better watch out.

I think what’s getting lost here is YouTuber isn’t just dealing with dichotomies, even when he only offers 2 choices, instead there’s an unstated hierarchy of wants. My want at level 50 is “don’t sound pretentious” while my lower want at level 75 is “shake it up a little”. Given the rankings I will greet you with “Hello” instead of “Bonjour”. That’s how it’s going to play out. And it will play out like that every time. That being the case, why did I say “Bonjour”? YouTuber says it’s because there’s actually another want at play. At level 38 is “I want to prove YouTuber wrong about free will.” The problem as you’ve stated is that, although it is sel-consistent, it’s also circular. For addicts, “take a hit” ranks higher than “don’t” but there are addicts who don’t. Therefore they must have a third want that you don’t know about. They want “in tact family” or “steady job” or “stop breaking mom’s heart” or some other want. This philosophy is unfalsifiable. The implication of this model is if we want to change behavior we need to add a new want to the hierarchy in a higher rank, or alter the ranking al an existent want. This then leads to the second issue with this philosophy. (I’ll get there after the following paragraph). In the Hello/Bonjour example another solution that YouTuber didn’t discuss at all is that maybe there wasn’t a third want - maybe my hierarchy shifted. Every time I say “Hello” my “shake it up” want moves up the hierarchy a notch. Once it’s at 49 I say “Bonjour” and it drops down again. This is something like the infinite prisoners dilemma (there’s a good TedEd video on that) (this is also the problem with the stable marriage algorithm - it only works if everyone’s rankings stay the same). Whether Bonjour comes from a new rule or a shift in the hierarchy, it highlights the same question: Where does the hierarchy of wants come from? YouTuber is arguing a mechanical-style of free will based on the hierarchy of wants which means (hopefully I’m not presuming too much) this hierarchy falls under the nature/nurture debate but must ultimately be nurture. That is, if it is mechanistic then the current example can come from how a person was raised (outside influences) or genetics (natural influences) but if it’s ultimately mechanistic then the outside influence (culture, counter culture, parents, etc) is the result of meta-evolution and the natural influence is from evolution. Since YouTuber hasn’t expressly made this argument I won’t engage it further, but I’ll leave it here for consideration. Beyond nature and nurture I can think of two other sources for this hierarchy of wants. How bout God? The challenge here is a theological one @Traveler often raises. If a person sins because of the hierarchy God set, who is ultimately responsible for that sin? Is God just for condemning the man He preset to sin? This lead to the fourth option, that there’s something independent within the individual uncreated by God. @Just_A_Guy wrote previously about “intelligences” and while Latter-day Saints are comfortable with it, it creates a divide when discussing with credal Christians about Creation or God’s relationship to man.

I haven’t seen it. When I first heard of it I laughed. Then I saw the Tony performance (or maybe it was the German equivalent) and thought “this is actually good”. I need to listen to the album to help me decide if I actually want to see it. Or the recommendation from a trusted source. In general musicals based on movies start with one strike against them.