MrShorty

After several weeks, I feel great (after 6 months of chem and radiation, I had forgotten what it feels like to be myself). Follow up tests are showing no cancer remaining, so the chemo and radiation were very successful. Now the surgeon is giving me a choice. Stick with the tried and true treatment plan and cut the offending part of my gut out, because we know through years of experience what the risk of recurrence is (pretty small). Or forego surgery (a less tested and less understood course of action) and see what happens. The idea of skipping surgery is, naturally, appealing. But I'm just not sure I want to take on the uncertainty. If the cancer were to come back, there would be the regret of not having done everything we could now to prevent recurrence. If we do surgery and it comes back, well, then we shake our fist at God until we get it out of our system, then submit to His will. If only there was a way to see into the future, but there isn't, so I feel inclined to go with the known risk rather than the unknown risk and have surgery. It's a bit of a tough decision, but that seems best with what we know now.

I don't know all of the who's who in Mormon history, but Ardis comes across as one who knows her stuff. She's not convinced: http://www.keepapitchinin.org/2022/07/27/is-it-joseph-smith-the-scotch-verdict/ Her official verdict is "not proven"

I, too, would struggle mightily with Eastern Europe and Africa. In part because some of the political borders have changed (some dramatically) from when I was young.

Having served a Canadian mission, I wonder what it would look like if you also included the 10 provinces (and 2 major territories) of Canada.

According to Jana Riess's article, this daguerrotype and the death mask were compared by some experts using facial recognition software and there was a solid match for 19 of 21 features they looked at. I don't have access to the JWHA article that appears to be the primary source for the popular publication articles, so I cannot say more about the methodology or arguments they are using to make the argument that this is a daguerrotype of the prophet. I'm intrigued by the possibility. It seems to me that the next step would be to get some other experts to replicate the analysis and see what they say and see if a consensus develops.

An you're certainly not alone in coming to the same conclusion -- most notably, the Catholic Church agrees with you. It's one of those things where, with the precedent set by the Catholic and other Christian churches, it wouldn't necessarily be controversial to take the stand that life begins at conception, so I find it interesting that the LDS Church refuses to make that claim in any official capacity.

If it doesn't get too personal, I will offer another data point. The Church officially feels very differently about stillbirth (and miscarriage) than they do about those born alive. My first child was stillborn at 39 weeks gestation (essentially full term). The Church officially says that they will not keep a record of him nor would they perform proxy ordinances (sealing to parents would be the important one) if needed. The Church is officially neutral on his status as a person and as a member of my family. Allow me to emphasize the neutral stance, in that they are not saying one way or another, but punting on the question until the next life. Contrast that with a child born premature at 24 weeks (speaking hypothetically only because I have not personally experienced this, I'm sure someone somewhere has personal experience with this scenario), who struggles for hours or days or weeks, and then passes away. By virtue of having "lived" outside of the womb for any length of time (however brief), that child is considered by the Church to be unambiguously a member of the family and eligible for proxy sealing to parents when needed. I don't know the answer to the OP's question. At conception seems too early, to me. As I understand it, the Church is a bit ambiguous about the space between conception and birth, and doesn't truly recognize a child as fully and unambiguously alive until birth (perhaps in keeping with the example given in the OP). This seems more an admission of a lack of revelation rather than a firm stance one way or the other, preferring to let God decide those things and tell us later (probably next life).

Obviously, there is no reason for the US to do things the way Canada does them, but I returned from my mission to Quebec just a few years before the 1995 referendum in which the popular vote of Quebecers only narrowly voted to remain a part of Canada. In the aftermath, there was a Canadian Supreme Court opinion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_Re_Secession_of_Quebec) on what it would take for a province to secede, as well as the Clarity Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarity_Act) that outlined possible terms of secession. Again, we don't have to be like Canada, but it seems like there is a possible precedent there for looking at the possibility of a peaceful secession rather than resorting to a second civil war. I think you are right that the big questions are not really addressed in the "should we secede or not?" question. There are a lot of things that the states outsource to the federal government which, if a state seceded, it would have to figure out how it was going to accomplish those things. Minting of currency is one thing, but then how to bolster the value of that currency so it doesn't tank? How to manage military forces and resources? How to negotiate trade now that the state boundary is now an international boundary, and so on. I think it is easy in the heat of political rhetoric to overlook or downplay these kinds of pragmatic issues, but they are not small. As you say, it is an interesting hypothetical to talk about at parties and on the internet. I would hope that we would be very careful about the decision should it ever get beyond hypotheticals.

I'm inclined to think of the fig leaves as figurative. "Covering our nakedness with fig leaves" is symbolic of our common, human tendency to try to hide, cover, ignore, deny, etc our sins and shortcomings.

I have no expertise to say one way or the other. I do notice that you are more certain of your non-euphemistic interpretation than many others I have read on this (Ben Spackman, for example: https://benspackman.com/2022/06/gospel-doctrine-20-ruth-and-samuel-1/). I see no reason to think it is necessary to assume innuendo in the story, but neither do I see any reason to flat out reject the possibility. It also seems that this has been long debated for many years. I doubt a post on thirdhour is going to settle the debate once and for all.

Well, the oncology stuff (radiation and chemo) is all done, and all that is left is to wait a couple of months and go under the knife. Radiation treatments have been rough the last couple of weeks. Not quite as debilitating as the chemo, but a daily battle with fatigue and occasional concerns about making it to the bathroom on time, and it hasn't been fun. In theory, things should improve over the next few weeks.

I understand that there are differences between Utah and Texas (and lots of other places in the country). The thing that I don't understand is why someone would say, "I would rather spend twice as much for the same house and live in Utah than spend half as much for the same house and live in Texas (or other place where housing is much cheaper)." I realize that these economic decisions are a lot more complex than just how much a house costs, but a house is a major cost, so what things offset the currently much higher housing costs of living in Utah and other western states?

But what about the economies that make this kind of difference? I recall a few years ago (as many in my family were in various locations around Texas) looking at house prices in Texas compared to Utah. At that time, what I noticed was that, while the official "listing" price was a bit lower than in Utah, the overall mortgage payment (after insurance and property tax) wasn't that different (mostly due to Texas's higher property tax rates that offset the absence of any income tax). My thinking then was that the lower "valuations" were at least in part because people needed more for taxes than I did. Now, though, as house prices around here climb wildly, I cannot understand what Utah (and Idaho and other states here in the west) have that other places in the country do not that drives such high prices (mostly because demand is very high). Some say that it is driven by Californians who are able to buy bigger houses here than they leave behind in Ca, but then why not consider other places farther east where you can get even more house for the money than you can in some of our western states? Some say it is because they want to stay in the west, but I don't know. Maybe there's another tax incentive to buy an expensive house. As I understand it, if I sell my house (and I would make a sizeable profit compared to what I payed for it), and fail to reinvest all of that money in another house, then I would be subject to income tax on the profits from selling my house. If it isn't obvious, I have no idea what I am talking about, but it seems like among the economic forces at play should be some kind of, "I can buy house x in Utah for 0.5 million or the same house in Tx for 0.25 million. I should buy the house in Tx rather than Ut." kind of logic that should lower demand in highly expensive states and increase demand in lower cost states. But that doesn't seem to be happening, so what other economic considerations are driving this? Jobs? Are we really saying that economies of these places are so depressed that no one can find work? Is it a tax burden issue? Other elements in the cost of living that offset the savings in housing costs? I agree it's about the local economies, but what?

Our house in So. Utah County would sell for 3x to 4x what we paid for it in 2002 (according to zillow). What surprises me is how different it is around the country. My family has got a kind of habit (that often feeds a dissatisfaction with our current residence) of looking at other housing markets and finding large, cheap houses in various parts of the country. One day it's a 7bed 7bath house in Michigan somewhere for 150k, or something similar in No Carolina or even in Texas. The Utah (and much of the western US) housing market seems so overpriced right now, but I can't explain with my limited understanding in economics why houses are so much cheaper elsewhere in the country.

Approaching the half-way mark of the radiation (+ a little chemo) phase. My first thought when I entered the radiation room with the large linear accelerator they use was of the computer game Theme Hospital (which has morphed into its modern version, 2 Point Hospital). Brief summary of the game -- it's a simulation type of game where you are tasked with managing a hospital (in a world with some rather amusing ailments). Part of your job is building rooms and machines that diagnose and/or treat the different diseases. My first thought as I entered the linear accelerator room was to think that this looks an awful lot like something out of Theme Hospital. Anyway, the first couple of weeks weren't too bad. I was recovering from chemo and the radiation hadn't really started to effect (or affect??) me. At this point, I am beginning to feel the effects of the radiation. Biggest effect so far (if it's not TMI) -- well I'll leave it to your imagination -- but I expect people can make reasonable guesses at what might happen when you start to burn and irritate the bottom end of your bowels. A little over 3 more weeks, then I'm done with all of the oncology stuff (assuming we've managed to kill everything outside of the main tumor). Then we can talk about surgery (but let's not hurry to get there).

I should probably apologize for the irreverent nature of this one. I once posted the joke about dogs and cats where dogs believe that, because we bring them food, we are god, and cats believe that, because we bring them food, they are god. Well, in the same vein...

Assuming you want to use a standard "compound interest" type of model, you could use the FV() function: https://support.google.com/docs/answer/3093224 =FV(annual increase rate, number of years, 0, -present value of bill) [Because of sign conventions and such, present value and future value will usually be of opposite sign].

If we decide this book is "required reading," I would also suggest that at least some of the critiques of the book also be included. As with so many divisive topics, I expect that the real truth is somewhere in the middle. Some trans people are legitimately trans, and to deny them respect and care is unkind and unwarranted. I also expect that there are some falling prey to "social contagion." In either case, I believe that kindness and support seem the best practice, because, for someone genuinely trans, supporting them is best, and for someone choosing this way to fit in, they will eventually mature and find their real identity (as long as there are no other mental illnesses that could drive this need attention). If it helps, here's a mostly negative review, but he at least says, "there are valid ideas here" while, at the same time, expressing a desire for some real data to drive the discussion rather than something based on partial data from a seemingly biased source. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/checkpoints/202101/review-irreversible-damage-abigail-shrier

Glad to hear you will be released and able to rejoin your wife today. On another note, I looked a little into C. diff. infections. If memory serves, you know at least a little French. I found it interesting that C. diff is also sometimes referred to as C. difficile (si difficile??) and I chuckled a little.

You're not describing my favorite way to spend a wedding anniversary, but you're right that, even in imperfect situations, it is nice and important to feel God's love and recognize His part in blessing us as He does. Best of luck with your recovery, and hopefully your wife has a safe journey back home. At that point, I recommend finding a better way to celebrate your anniversary (even if it has to be on an unanniversary day) ((<- not sure my Alice in Wonderland reference is working here))

For Star Wars day, I get to start the radiation phase (5-6 weeks) of my treatment plan. I'm a little disappointed that I have not recovered more from chemo (recovered a lot during week 2, but seems to have plateaued on week 3), but I'm in pretty good shape. I'm tempted to find some glow-in-the-dark body paint or something so I can make myself "glow." (I still have a sense of humor).

Agreed. I'm not entirely sure what is false and true in this discussion, but I agree that the discussion cannot move forward.

I get it, but I see too many examples of people who claim exactly that -- that God lead them away from the Church and/or led them to not embrace the Church when brought to their attention. Perhaps they are merely deluded, I can't say. If I take their experiences at face value, then I have to conclude that God sometimes does exactly what you say He would not do. In some ways, this is part of why I lean universalist. In this life, we all too often see through a glass darkly, leading to plenty of confusion and uncertainty. It seems to me that, for God to be perfectly just, He must allow for adequate time/space in the next life to clarify all the things we thought we knew but really didn't and give us each an adequate opportunity to accept the truth when it is clear to us.

I'm not convinced that dating is a homosexual act. I also don't think the false equivalence (or is it more of fallacious slippery slope argument) between permitting same sex couples to go see a movie together automatically and inevitably means that we also have to ignore the strong romantic exclusivity promise that is part of marriage (and many dating relationships approaching marriage). If you have read the Tribune article I mentioned, the big question in the article is whether or not dating and other romantic behaviors (that we don't bat an eye at when opposite sex couples engage in them) are okay for same sex couples. Many people feel that the Church has not been clear about that, so they feel drawn to make their own decisions. I just listened to an episode of Questions from the Closet (An episode titled Can I date from Jan 2021, if you want). For those unfamiliar with the podcast, Questions from the closet is hosted by Ben Schilaty (a gay man working in the BYU honor code office) and Charlie Bird (also gay and active LDS) talk about LGBT issues. In this particular episode they talk about their own experiences (including experiences with God/The Spirit approving of decisions to date or pursue romantic relationships). In they end, they don't officially want to give anyone permission to date, but they believe that it is an individual choice made as most of us make difficult decisions, by counseling with God and priesthood leaders. I also recently listened to an episode of Richard Ostler's Listen Learn Love podcast (episode 511) where Ostler interviews a David Bingham who is gay, left the Church in his youth, returned later (at the time of the podcast he had been in full fellowship for a few years and was then 60 years old) who is also in an exclusive same sex romantic relationship while staying in full fellowship. He seems to feel that God and the Church are fine with his status. I know these are not the only examples, but I would suggest that they show that there are at least some priesthood leaders/Bishops and congregations where active Church members are not bothered by same sex romantic relationships. Are we certain that they are forbidden by God?

You caught me careless in my choice of words. Yes, God does not force us to Heaven. I believe that He will continue to invite us for as long as He possibly can.