mordorbund
-
Posts
6430 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
28
Posts posted by mordorbund
-
-
-
On 1/29/2024 at 7:36 PM, JohnsonJones said:
I paid $1.50/gallon yesterday. That was with some of it off (cheaper than normal), but it was quite inexpensive for me. Bread was around $2.50 a loaf. A Dozen eggs is under $3. A gallon of milk is around $2.49 so not terrible.
If the United States is willing to get involved in the Middle East because of our interest in petroleum, I think we should do some "nation building" in India to free up their untapped dairy resources.
- Carborendum and zil2
-
2
-
20 hours ago, mikbone said:
I do my own children missionary H&Ps and one of my boys had a fast heart rate. I sent him to get a cardiology consult.
How did you react when he was diagnosed with "being in love"?
- zil2 and Carborendum
-
2
-
14 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:
Originally there were also to be Saturn stones, which I think would have looked cool (though the intended symbolism is lost on me).
Nibley's Temple and Cosmos (page 17): "The curious Saturn stones may refer to the unlimited glories awaiting worthy saints." No citations for it though.
- Just_A_Guy and NeuroTypical
-
2
-
14 hours ago, zil2 said:
The what!? (This is the first time, that I can remember, I've heard either of those terms.)
Found it. It was in context of the avenger of blood.
And I got the transliteration wrong. The title is ga'al.
-
4 minutes ago, Vort said:
unless Christ buys us back (aka redeems us)
@zil2 You studied the goel or redeemer-kinsman. Any insights on this?
-
9 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:
assuming he’s still alive, of course . . .
If he can vote he can be POTUS
-
On 1/20/2024 at 12:09 PM, Jamie123 said:
I am very interested in philosophy, though I'm not as involved with it anything like enough to call it a "hobby". When my daughter was little I used to talk about it with her. Sometimes I would read to her from Plato's Republic to see what she made of it. As she got older though, she started studying philosophy as a subject at school, and our conversations became something like this:
Me: So you've been learning about Kant? Didn't he believe in dualism?
Daughter: No, that was Descartes.
Me: Kant believed in dualism too. The noumenal world and the phenomenal world?
Wife: If you're going to disagree with her, why ask her in the first place?
Me: I'm sorry, I may not know much about Kant, but I do know for a fact that Kantian dualism is a thing. I have read about it.
Wife: Why do you have to argue all the time?
Me: We're not arguing, we're having a conversation.
My dad said this was his feelings as we each moved out. He thought the dinner conversations had finally gotten more interesting.
-
10 hours ago, Carborendum said:
Where is @mordorbund when you need him?
I didn't say the answer was really 5.
I said the answer was really 5!
I can't believe no one got that.
5! vs 5? I figure you've got 50/50 odds of being correct.
For those following along that's a sure thing.
-
-
My favorite part of the Epic of Gilgamesh is the story of the seven loaves. Many people fear death and shut their eyes to it but it’s a part of the rest we need for our mortal labors.
-
-
3 hours ago, askandanswer said:
I’ve just done a brief fact check on this and am happy to report the following:
6:55:10 seconds – 100,000,000,002 neutrinos through left thumb
6:55:12 seconds 99,999,999,981 neutrinos through right thumb
6:55:14 seconds 100,000,000,104 neutrinos through tip of nose
6:55:16 seconds 100,000,000,046 neutrinos through left middle toenail
The theory seems to be substantially correct.
- Carborendum, mikbone, askandanswer and 1 other
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
Probably should have read this thread before serving my charcuterie.
- SilentOne, Carborendum and LDSGator
-
3
-
Double posted so I better add something of interest here.
Previous discussion:
-
On 12/28/2023 at 2:42 PM, zil2 said:
So, I guess if someone is still talking about this if / after Biden finishes his presidency, they'll be the people who can't reason. But here, I'll do them a favor: <start conspiracy voice>Biden hasn't been Biden for some time now - they replaced him with a look-alike (or someone wearing a mask, or someone with a good Hollywood make-up job), so Biden's presidency really was cut short even though no one else believes it, and we're just waiting for the big giant head (still can't resist) to wake up and gobble up the next two contenders.</end conspiracy voice>
I think the seed for that has already been planted.
-
43 minutes ago, zil2 said:
I suspect that's why the practice stopped - those who chose the music were never choosing to sing any of the longer hymns. How Firm a Foundation is another that would get skipped.
I'm leaving strict instructions that should I die (as opposed to the Second Coming happening first), there is to be no funeral. But if they rebel and insist on holding a funeral, they are to do nothing but sing every single verse of all my favorite hymns - I'll leave a list. How Firm a Foundation and A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief will be on that list. (And if they do anything other than sing all my favorite hymns, I'll come back and haunt whoever made that decision.)
Don’t forget all 134 verses of Follow the Prophet
- zil2 and Carborendum
-
2
-
5 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:
No no. I'm working on a musicalized version of Brokeback Mountain.
It would be the first musical based on a movie to win an award. And it would win all the awards.
I think the reason Dear Evan Hansen beat out Come From Away was because everyone assumed the central suicide was a gay kid.
-
1 hour ago, pam said:
I won't see it because it has Tom Cruise in it.
I think Tom Cruise is the reason why it turned out so good.
Face. Smoosh.
-
1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:
On it.
(j/k of course)
No rush. Go ahead and finish your Taylor Swift jukebox musical first.
- zil2, LDSGator and The Folk Prophet
-
3
-
11 hours ago, zil2 said:
Do you suppose there will be an entertainment industry during the Millennium? Movies, fictional novels and stories, poetry, music (in addition to hymns), painting and sculptures, etc.? I wonder about such things. If so, I believe we can have some good clean entertainment.
I can't remember the last time I went to a movie. I stick with books. There are still clean books to be found.
For a week or two (after reading a Brigham Young quote about how we'll still build houses, etc.) I got to thinking about what sort of businesses would still be needed in the Millennium. Long story short I concluded that I would be in the same line of work but very likely under new management. At that time I also got to thinking about whether the entertainment I enjoyed would still be a part of the culture. Specifically, I had the movie The Hunt for Red October* in mind. I got penny-wise on it and figured this that and the other could easily be cleaned up and then the pound-fools weighed in with the realization that the film wouldn't be relatable after a generation. The tension of "a war with no battles" and the duplicity of national leaders trying to cover their motives would be alien to the new culture. I still might be able to enjoy a VidAngel version, and my kids may humor my love of it, but my grandkids would find it foreign.
* I'm still waiting for that to be converted into an opera. Naval battle ballets; patriotic blues and red; and the bass parts go to the government bureaucrats.
-
8 hours ago, Vort said:
Doesn't work well with an American accent. We need some sort of transAtlantic equalization here. I know just the man for the job, if Edwud Wudwud wud.
Not quite the same, but How many Lowe's would Rob Lowe rob if Rob Lowe would rob Lowe's?
- Carborendum, Vort and zil2
-
3
-
On 11/27/2023 at 1:07 PM, LDSGator said:On 11/27/2023 at 12:55 PM, NeuroTypical said:
My ward has been given the nickname "Most bearded ward in the stake", in two different stakes after a realignment. Once our bishopric had a beard growing contest (which was hilarious, because the bishop was still baby-bottom fresh except for three hairs a month later, and both his counselors looked like Grizzly Adams within a week.)
It's interesting: You go to the church website and search for "clean shaven". One of the results is "Section 7 - Bishopric". But you go there, and the words clean, shaven, or beard, do not appear anywhere in that chapter.
I'm thinking the church is happy to evolve cultural norms to a certain extent. What all the members think of as neat and modest and respectful and reverent changes over time, because we're humans living in human culture.
Evidence:
It'll probably be a few decades before we see another Joseph F. Smith-esque bearded prophet, or it could change next year.
Back in their day (Joesph F Smith) I think most men wore a beard.
@Just_A_Guy, you were around back then. Any truth to that? 😜
Joseph Smith dies under clean-shaven #10 John Tyler. We've got pictures of chin-bald Brigham in his early tenure. The bearded Young dies between #18-19 tenure of bearded Grand and Hayes (note trend-setting Lincoln also a decade earlier). John Taylor is prophet while the mustachioed Arthur and Cleveland serve (perhaps the chin curtain was counter-culture?). Beards haven't fully gone out of vogue in Woodruff's time, as Harrison attests firmly sandwiched between Cleveland. Joseph F. Smith looks to be bearded in a time of transition, when the mustache was deemed a sufficient water-strainer (#26-#28, see Roosevelt and Taft). After Wilson facial hair looks to have fallen out of favor so only Heber J. Grant and George Albert Smith are men-out-of-time and you can see their mouth coifs are vastly different from previous prophets (except maybe Woodruff).
- LDSGator and NeuroTypical
-
2
-
On 11/27/2023 at 2:42 PM, Vort said:
People Aren't Really This Stupid. Are They? They Can't Be. No, They're Just Faking It. But How Come The People Who Other People Think Are Smart Turn Out To Be The Stupidest? Are They Just Lying? Or Are They Really Stupid? Maybe There Is Something Called Spiritual Stupidity, And These Supposedly Smart People Are Really Just Spiritual Imbeciles. But That Doesn't Seem Too Likely, Does It? Does It? Hmmm. I Don't Know.)
Dearest Wormwood,
In your latest communication, you mention The Problem of Evil, but without any apparent understanding of the brilliance and cleverness of the argumentation. Really, Wormwood. I expect more from a promising nephew. This is a clear exercise in rhetoric, one you should be able to do in your sleep. Now pay attention, and let us discuss the Problem of Parental Love. Watch and learn.
-
If parents love their children, then they will always protect those children from evil.
- When capable of doing so, parents who love their children will never allow those children to experience evil.
- Loving parents will keep their beloved children free from the taint of evil, so will disallow any choice that leads toward evil.
- All parents allow their children to experience evil, in practice as well as in consequence.
- Therefore, no parents love their children.
Do you see how easily this is done? How natural it sounds? The general form goes more or less as follows:
-
Introduce an implicit paradox of the "Can-God-Create-A-Rock-So-Big-That-He-Can't-Lift-It?" variety.
- But for heaven's sake, be subtle about it! E.g. "Can the works of an all-good God ever bring about evil ends?" can be hinted at, but never overtly stated, because it's a patently ridiculous proposition. Seriously, don't show your cards. Misdirection is your friend. If you do it right, it can even confuse you, so that you can more convincingly play the part of the virtuous truth-seeker. (Though as a journeyman devil, shame on you if you ever fall for your own tricks!)
- Try using poorly defined words, such as "omnipotent" and "omniscient". You will be stunned at just how easily you can mislead these gullible fools by throwing around God's omnipotence. "Could God save Satan? Of course he could! God can do ANYTHING!" You may not believe me, but trust me, nephew, it is often exactly that easy.
- Always remember: This is not about establishing truth. (As if.) This is about using words cleverly.
- Introduce framing parameters that are actually not solid parameters, but rather are implicit comparisons or metaphors, or even figurative usages. E.g. "God can do anything" is wonderful, because then you can state patently false and self-contradictory things, as shown above, and support it by saying, "Well, you said that God can do ANYTHING. We're just using your own conditions."
- Using the poorly or ambiguously defined words and the metaphorical framing parameters, assert a contradiction. If you have laid the groundwork properly, your opponent will likely not even recognize that you are blatantly shifting the goalposts.
- Conclude that your initial paradox cannot be resolved, and therefore that a foundational claim must therefore be false. Voilá! You win!
Seem too blatant? That's just because you're naïve and can't see how expertly this can be done. If anyone complains, assert that you have used simple, elementary logic, and all they must do is point out your logical flaws. This will work in literally 99+% of cases, because the large majority of people aren't practiced at pointing out logical flaws, if indeed they can even identify them at all. They almost always will back down in intimidation.
In the rare case that someone actually dismantles what you have said or tries to point out your dishonesty in moving the goalposts, don't despair! Most listeners won't have followed the conversation closely; the large majority aren't actually interested in what is being said, just in the conclusions reached. Roll your eyes, sigh, make it clear that you are exercising your patience in what would normally be an insufferable situation, and say something that implies (but doesn't outright say) that your opponent is being obtuse, probably intentionally so. Something like, "Look, I have clearly pointed out the logical position. If you can dispute it, go ahead, but don't try to obfuscate the issue behind picky argumentation." (Which of course is exactly what YOU are doing; this makes your victory all the sweeter.) If you are a real expert, then you can sometimes even convince the dissident himself that he's wrong or has missed something. But you care only about the opinions of those witnessing the exchange; you don't care about the person arguing against you, except to destroy his credibility in the eyes of others.
Be clever and say the right thing, and you will win the vast majority of such exchanges. Some few you will inevitably lose; if you're in such a situation, simply point out some logical flaw (real or imagined—it doesn't really matter) in your opponent's argument and then change the subject, perhaps with a generous-sounding, "Look, I don't want to pick your words apart."
A very useful phrase in such situations is, "Let's just agree to disagree." It is truly amazing how often this little phrase will do the trick, rescuing a victory from the very jaws of defeat. Be sure to say it as if you're making a generous offer to move the conversation along, wherein you are willing to stop humiliating your opponent by just going to the next topic. If your opponent refuses to let it go, point this out in some way, so you can establish your own virtue and your opponent's lack of good faith. If he continues pressing and you can't escape his logic, simply refuse to continue the conversation. Do NOT attempt to address his concerns; at that point, you are unlikely to be able to deceive everyone, and You Never Want To Lose. So refuse to lose by refusing to continue the conversation.
If you do it right, this will look like you are the mature one who is unwilling to continue in a contentious debate. That's what you're after, Wormwood. Appearance is everything. Truth is what you manage to convince people it is.
Your voraciously affectionate uncle,
Screwtape
- Vort and Carborendum
-
2
-
If parents love their children, then they will always protect those children from evil.
Symbols on Temples
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
@Just_A_Guy’s article refers to it as Rub el Hizb. Maybe that will yield results.