LeSellers

Members
  • Posts

    2354
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Posts posted by LeSellers

  1. 10 hours ago, Carborendum said:

    This reminds me of the old joke.

    Man 1: I'm so faithful that I do my home teaching on the first day of every month!

    Man 2: I'm so faithful that I do it the day before you do!

    I hope you recall my limerick:

    A faithful home teacher named White
    Could travel much faster than light.
    He set one 1 May
    In a relative way,
    And did April's Home Teaching that night.

    Lehi

  2. I'm sinistral* and take no joy in living in a dextral world. But I make a point of taking the sacrament with my right hand. It's a point of submission and of obedience in my mind. Whatever the original of the practice makes no difference at all. Even though it's no longer taught in the Temple, I still dress myself "right side first", from the inside out, because that was part of the covenant I made in 1967.
    * The formal word for being left-handed. "Dextral" pertains to being right-handed.

    Lehi

  3. 9 hours ago, Carborendum said:

    Here's what I'd like to hear from each of you, but I wonder if you'd each even admit this much.

    1) There are recorded cases of police shooting individuals because of some trivial matters.  The question may be how often this occurs.  Can they be considered outliers?  Or is it common enough to say it is a "pattern"?

    2) Most police do a fantastic job of keeping law and order and using an amount of force appropriate to the situation.  And we owe as much to them as we do the men and women of the armed forces for protecting our way of life.

    Regardless of your primary points, you can agree to these points, right?

    My point has nothing to do with the police!* There are bad cops, there are good cops. It doesn't matter. It's the fact that governance is always by (threat of) lethal force. Politicians and bureaucrats demand, under ultimate threat of death, that we obey their edicts, diktats, laws, regulations, and other infringements on the natural rights we have. That some of the laws are useful (thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not steal, etc.) allows them to put other laws, etc., that are immoral and unnecessary and we, recognizing the power they have in the former case, permit them to ride rough-shod over our God-given freedoms and privileges.
    * The police are usually tasked with enforcing the laws, and may end up applying that ultimate pressure, but it is not their fault (in most cases). I have not attacked the police in this, and it is not my contention that cops go around, willy-nilly, killing people.

    I'd like to ask a question:

    Can anyone name a single law that the cops or anyone else in law enforcement would say, "Well, it's not worth it. We'll just let this ride. Go on about your business."?

    I give you John Singer. He broke a lot of laws. None of which affected anyone but those in his family (and not against their wills, either). He schooled his children in the family. A woman came to him and his wife and asked to marry him, as well, and he took her in. He went out one morning to get the mail, and Utah "peace officers", under the direction of the AG (as I recall, it's been fifteen or more years since I read the book), shot him dead. They claimed he was carrying a weapon, but there is absolutely no evidence to support this contention. Singer was not harming anyone, but the law must be obeyed, however irrational, however immoral. And Singer paid with his life for not hurting anyone, but offending the powers that be. Singer resisted, he had to die.

    I give you Ruby Ridge. Randy Weaver did not want to saw off the shotgun, but an undercover Peace officer" put enough pressure on him that he did it to get the man off his back. Then another "peace officer" shot and killed his wife and son. Weaver did not hurt anyone, but they killed his wife and son anyway because the law must be obeyed, whether the law is irrational or immoral. The powers that be must feel secure in their power, so they kill people. They resisted, they had to die.

    I give you Waco. No one there had hurt anyone outside the "compound". Everyone, except the little children, was there of his own accord. But 76 people died because the powers that be must be obeyed without question. They resisted, they had to die.

    This is not about the police, it's about irrational and immoral government. It's about the loss of freedoms. It's about living as peaceful people without what Jefferson called "swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance."

    Lehi

  4. 3 minutes ago, unixknight said:

    that isn't the automatic result of this scenario,

    Automatic, no. Possible, yes.

    Even if the final "cause" of the death, it is a necessary (albeit not sufficient) cause of this kind of death.

    Washington told us "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master."

    As you said (and as I have said dozens of times) all laws are backed up by (the threat of) lethal force. That is the point. Government is dangerous.

    Lehi

     

  5. 13 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

    Well, the primary thing that makes me go "hmm" is that we're talking about 26,000 miles just to get to orbit, much less the space station beyond.  Is this elevator equipped with a bathroom, several restaurants, and in flight entertainment?

    Read it a long time ago, and it wasn't a major part of the story; just backdrop. So I have no idea.

    Hypothetically, though, since we experience up to 2Gs in an elevator, and assuming it takes 26,000 miles to orbit, how long would it take at that same 2Gs the whole trip?

    Lehi

     

  6. 3 minutes ago, rpframe said:

    Sure, not going to disagree that some cops go overboard sometimes. But I still think its a valid reason to be pulled over.

    Perhaps it is. That doesn't change the fact that people die as a result of traffic stops.

    Most traffic stops are not important.

    Lehi

  7. 3 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

    Maybe I missed something.  Which one of these is a trivial reason?

    "He was going for his gun"
    "He was going for my gun"
    "He wasn't stopping and we were headed into a busy street where people were walking"
    "He refused to put his hands up and kept gesturing towards his waist band"
    "I believed he had a knife, and refused to step away from the child"

    None of those is trivial. The contact with the police (and higher ups in the law enforcement community: prosecutors, judges, and so on) may have been entirely trivial. Selling loosies, jaywalking, simply lying in bed when the cops break down the wrong door, even selling drugs or having a broken tail light, these are all trivial reasons, based on incredibly stupid and immoral laws.

    Lehi

  8. 33 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

    Examples: "He was going for his gun"
    "He was going for my gun"
    "He wasn't stopping and we were headed into a busy street where people were walking"
    "He refused to put his hands up and kept gesturing towards his waist band"
    "I believed he had a knife, and refused to step away from the child"

    And  each of these "examples" is an example of resisting aggressively, and obviously, aggressively enough.

    35 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

    I suppose you can find exceptions of a bad cop here or there.

    The problem isn't "bad cops", the problem is that the law forces cops to kill people for what are, all too often, for what are, at the base, trivial reasons.

    Lehi

  9. 40 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

    Appears the Lord had already given the Brother of Jared the answer to his problem, he just needed to go read his scriptures instead. Perhaps similar to us in our day, appears the Lord may not spoon feed us all of our answers to our problems IF he has already given us the answers in the scriptures.

    About a month ago, I was is in the Temple and thought,

    Quote

    The Brother of Jared searched for and found 16 small stones. He must have had some kind of an idea of why "stones" would work. I am wondering if he was reading the original text that Adam and Enoch and Noah wrote, because, from the information I've seen, Noah had a luminous stone (at least one) in the Ark. So, not only did Mahonri Moriancumer think about it, and go out and smelt the stones, but he also studied the scripture to get his answer.

    I just copied his from my phone. (No, I wasn't taking notes in the Temple.)

    Lehi

     

  10. A follow on from the earlier conversation:
     

    Quote

    Amy wrote:

    > I read about [the Jaredite vessels] this
    > morning...I didn't have the impression that it
    > was a submarine, but a barge that would have
    > waves crashing over it often.

    Yes, my image of the WW II ships keeps popping
    into view for me.

    > I also had the image in my mind of
    > something shaped like a large enclosed canoe
    > that would turn over sometimes.

    I listed my objections to this, but they're
    only my views, certainly not doctrine.

    > I thought that it must have a
    > "floating" floor in it (maybe on ball
    > bearings?) ...

    I think this would have made the newspapers,
    or at least a brief note by Moroni as he
    translated the Jaredite record. This
    was technology beyond anything Mahonri
    would have seen, and would most definitely
    have required a vision or other revelation
    for him to have accomplished. But, if the
    barges/boats/vessels did roll over, it
    would have had to be something like this.

    > ... since the Lord told them to
    > check one airhole and if water came in
    > to open the other.

    Actually, the Lord never said anything about
    opening the other (lower) hatch. Even under
    the waves, the passengers would have known
    which hatch was above them, the only one
    they'd have attempted to open. If they were
    below the surface, however briefly, they
    would not have wanted to leave it open.
    This is another indicator that the barges
    were not submerged for long: they waited
    until they needed air, were "suffer[ing]"
    before opening the upper hatch. They could
    not have waited too much longer to re-open
    it, so their stints under the waves
    necessarily had to be short.

    The only verse that speaks of opening a hatch is

    Quote

    20 And the Lord said unto the brother of Jared:
    Behold, thou shalt make a hole in the top, and
    also in the bottom; and when thou shalt suffer
    for air thou shalt unstop the hole and receive
    air. And if it be so that the water come in upon
    thee, behold, ye shall stop the hole, that ye
    may not perish in the flood.

    No mention at all of opening the other one,
    ever.

    As I said, I favor a "large drain" concept,
    opened solely while the barge was pulled out
    of the sea during replenishment layovers.
    Others have hypothesized their opening the
    lower hatch under weigh, but it is more
    problematic in my view--the physics doesn't
    support it as well. It doesn't eliminate it,
    either, so I'm still open--it's just that the
    available evidence leans, in my view, as I
    have presented it.

    In any case, there is nothing in the record
    that points to a continuous 344-day voyage.
    The length of time alone demands that they
    stopped for fresh water and food. Even modern
    nuclear-powered aircraft carriers (and
    submarines that do not surface while on
    patrol), with desalinization facilities for
    water and pumps for waste, etc., don't stay
    out at sea for longer than six months because
    of the food issue. They have refrigeration
    on board, as well, which greatly extends
    their patrol radius. The size of Mahonri's
    little barges makes it all the more imperative
    that they took on fresh supplies from time to
    time. And, while they were ashore, the boat
    maintenance, including draining the bilge,
    would have been a priority.

    It is also rather interesting that recent
    archeological and anthropological discoveries
    have shown that the Jaredites were not the
    only users of luminous stones while on a
    long water voyage: Noah, too, according to
    Jewish traditions (recorded in writings dating
    back to the IV BC) had such illumination, and
    the design of the ark was also a large box.
    (Indeed, the word "ark" means "box" as in the
    Ark of the Covenant.)

    Anyway, it is good to see that others have
    thought about Mahonri's sea voyage and
    tried to understand and resolve the
    logisitical and mechanical problems the
    Jaredites faced.

    Enjoy,
    Lehi

  11. This is eleven years old. I think it might work here.
     

    Quote

    Leesa wrote:
    > I must be the only one
    >I know who was impressed
    > about the Jaredites coming
    > over in what sounded like a
    > very ancient version of the
    > submarine.

    That's a wide-spread misunderstanding
    of the early Ether passages. Mahonri
    and his brother did not build
    "submarines".

    We don't know exactly what they
    looked like, but we do know a few
    things about these barges.

    First, since the group had built many
    other water craft for crossing lakes
    and rivers as they traversed (probably)
    Europe*, they had skill in these arts.
    No river requires a "submarine".
    *Hugh Nibley hypothesized Asia, but
    it doesn't fit for me. First, to
    cross the Atlantic from Asia requires
    some interesting navigation. However,
    it wasn't until much later that Peleg
    was born (in his days was the earth
    divided--Gen 10:25), long after Jared
    fled Babel, so who knows?


    Second, the Lord gave* Mahonri
    sixteen small stones to light the
    interiors of the barges, so we know
    they were sealed, and in contrast to
    their earlier vessels, which
    evidently needed no lights. These new
    ocean-going craft also needed air
    vents, unlike their predecessors.
    *I know the story; just making it fit
    in here.


    A vessel tight like unto a dish still
    lets some water in through any hole
    in the bottom because the air
    pressure inside the boat is less
    (slightly, and growing as the depth
    increases) than the pressure of the
    water outside. So, those holes in the
    bottoms of the barges were not opened
    except while on land (it took nearly
    a year to cross the ocean--far too
    long with raging winds and seas) to
    pick up fresh water, food and other
    supplies. During these "port calls",
    they would have hauled the boats up
    on shore and drained the bilges.
    Imagine living in a closed boat for a
    year with animal and human waste
    accumulating on the floor.

    Since the barges were rather small
    (the length of a tree), they can't
    have been too tall, either--meaning
    the people and animals were only a
    few feet above the keel.

    You might remember that the Lord told
    Mahonri to open the upper vents for
    air as needed, but He never said
    anything about opening the hatches in
    the bottoms of the boats.

    I am not among those who believe this,
    but there are many smart people who
    think that these barges were not very
    stable--that they might be flipped
    upside down. If so, the second hole
    would have assured there was always a
    hole above for air. (A slight
    alternative would be that the hauling
    of the barges onto land might have
    caused them to tip over. This is more
    likely, in my mind. I can't see life
    inside a boat that turned over during
    high seas. Hard way to sleep--
    sailors on wooden vessels millennia
    later slept in hammocks so the
    swaying of the ship helped them sleep.
    I have a hard time envisioning a
    hammock that would let the occupant
    stay asleep during a complete rollover,
    not to mention things falling all
    around them.)

    Finally, when the Lord told Mahonri
    that they would be buried, and that
    they would have waves crashing over
    them, I refer you to any World War II
    movie with ships vastly larger than
    the Jaredite barges. You'll see huge
    waves partially submerging those
    massive craft. Think of poor Jared
    with his tiny boat. I suspect the
    image of the waves crashing over them,
    as if they were like whales, would
    have been frightening to the men,
    terrifying to the women and children.
    The Lord's promise that they would
    always pop back up to the surface was
    comforting. Any "burial" in the
    depths of the sea would have been
    very short-lived. We use the same term,
    "buried under the water", to describe
    baptism.

    Anyway, there are serious problems
    with the account if we try to make
    the Jaredite barges into submarines.
    Those problems go away when we see
    them as large, floating boxes that
    would have to face the huge Atlantic
    waves most LDS scholars think Mahonri
    and his brother braved.

    Enjoy,
    Lehi

  12. 15 hours ago, Awakened said:
    On 4/18/2016 at 1:21 PM, LeSellers said:

    The "ghost stuff" is both improbable and scary because it could be true.

    What "ghost stuff"?

    Here is one of the tamer passages:

    Quote

    … I perceived that he was a good man, a returned missionary, and presently serving in his quorum presidency.

    My guide said to me, "He is here to view pornography."

    I saw eight spirits enter the room. Four of these were evil spirits who had once been mortal, the other four were unborn evil spirits — Satan's minions. The disembodied looked human and wore clothing typical of the period in which they had died. The evil spirits were less substantial, generally smaller, with misshapen features, making them look slightly inhuman. They were agitated, active, jumping around in a frenzy, shouting their commands to the young man in excited voices.

    The disembodied spirits said little at first. They had little ability to be heard by the young man. They were there trying to satisfy the sexual passion they had developed during their own lives. There were both male and female spirits. Their sexual addiction had followed them into the spirit world. Their addiction was unending, painful, and impossible to satisfy. It haunted them. They were desperate to try to satisfy it endlessly. They were pleased that they were going to shortly experience it through this young man. They were intent, watching him, urging him on though he could not hear them. They were not looking at the screen; they were watching him closely, putting their faces in his face and screaming at him, mocking him and taunting him. They didn't care about the images; they cared about sharing the body sensation of sexual gratification.

    Lehi

  13. 1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

    Yes, it is conceivable that there would be designs around it.  But it is not as simple as building something on earth -- and not just for the logistical difficulties of building it.  The design issues are manifold.  And everything has such tight tolerances that the construction and overall design are not a walk in the park.

    The only "science" involved is science fiction.

    Lehi

  14. 39 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

    One of the problems with that is the stability.  Imagine how the simple act of moving the elevator capsule up and down the shaft would change the center of gravity enough to cause it to fall or spin out of orbit.  This also came up during the construction portion of the project.

    The problem is, we're not talking about a "shaft" (at least I'm not). We're talking about a cable held aloft by the inertia of the Earth's spin, with a mass at the extreme end to give it tension. The elevator rides up and down this cable by friction on the cable itself, not a counterweight and drive mechanism.

    I wish I could recall which story this is. The technology used is pseudo-one dimensional fiber (that cut off the hero's finger, which he planned to have regrown). With cable made of these one-dimensional fibers in a big bundle and the elevator car (a toroid) surrounding it, the car goes ever faster in ascent and slower in descent.

    Lehi