LeSellers
-
Posts
2354 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
10
Posts posted by LeSellers
-
-
15 hours ago, pam said:
Saying non GMO products don't use pesticides is very misleading.
While that is true, it is equally untrue to say that all organic producers use pesticides.
There is no standard for the label "organic". General Mills and General Foods have co-opted the term and others, following in their wake have corrupted it.
There are producers "out there" who do not use pesticides and other patent (a key word) pesticides, and who rely on natural controls (lady bugs, Neem oil, BT, etc.). There are dairymen who do not feed their cows hormones and antibiotics. By necessity, their products cost more since they cannot afford to supply our food at the same price Big Agri does. But there is a demand and the Law of Supply'n'Demand is always in effect.
But, back to bees …
Lehi
-
1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:
And that's why US, Canada, and UN scientists are lying to us about bees?
I don't follow...
Only some of them — those who get their paychecks from the government or Monsanto.
Look, you have your data, but there is some discrepancy between what you're projecting and what I'm reading from the people who are fighting the war.
My trust in "science" is tempered by the fact that they get their money from power-grubbing politicians and bureaucrats, who, in turn, get their money from Monsanto and Bayer.
Lehi
-
On 8/2/2016 at 6:04 PM, Hemisphere said:
the rest of the world does not necessarily agree with american science that is corporate sponsored.
One of the errors most people around the world have is that USAan science (and a host of other fields) is "corporate sponsored". That's only true in a fraction of cases.
What the problem is is that USAan science is government-sponsored. Grants and direct funding from a host of tax money sources, including to and within universities, has tainted science (from "global warming" – or whatever they call it these days – to AIDS) such that the vast majority of research must toe the government line of risk defunding. That is problem enough, but the government line so toed invariably leads to greater government involvement in whatever "problem" these "researchers" discover.
Now, I must admit that government here is strongly influenced by corporations, so your point is true indirectly. Nonetheless, corporations are amoral: they are in it for the money, as they should be. But government is in it for the power. And that is most definitely not the way it should be.
Our Dept Agriculture (among others, the EPA, for example) gets a lot of money from agribusiness. Congressmen get a lot of money from agribusiness. Agribusiness wants to "steer" the decisions, regulations, and laws so it can make money. And the ROI is impressive. But government is in it for the power, as noted above. And, if making laws that give money to the lobbyists also advances its agenda, everybody wins. Well, everybody who's just a taxpayer, consumer, or other outsider.
Lehi
-
Another article pointing to the same problem and the same probable cause. Here's an exerpt:
QuoteDate: July 27, 2016
Source: University of Bern [Switzerland]
Summary: Male honey bees, called drones, can be affected by two neonicotinoid insecticides by reducing male honey bee lifespan and number of living sperm. Both insecticides are currently partially banned in Europe. Researchers from Bern, Switzerland, together with partners from Thailand and Germany, call for more thorough environmental risk assessments of these neonicotinoids.In recent years, beekeepers have struggled to maintain healthy honey bee colonies throughout the northern hemisphere. In the first study to investigate the effects of neonicotinoids on drones, and one of the first to study the effects of these agricultural chemicals on males in general, an international research team led by the University of Bern and Agroscope has found that two neonicotinoids may inadvertently reduce drone lifespan and number of living sperm. Because queen survival and queen productivity are intimately connected to successful mating with males, any influence on sperm quality may have profound consequences for the health of the queen, as well as the entire colony. In light of recent beekeeper surveys that identified poor queen health as an important reason for honey bee colony losses, this study further strengthens calls for more thorough environmental risk assessments of these insecticides, as well as other crop protection products, to protect bees and other beneficial organisms.
…
A research team from the institutes of bee health and veterinary public health at the University of Bern (Switzerland) and Agroscope at the Swiss Confederation (Switzerland), alongside collaborators from Chiang Mai University and Mae Fah Luang University (Thailand) and the University of Koblenz-Landau (Germany) recently demonstrated in an article in the scientific journal Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences that male honey bees, also called drones, are vulnerable to the neonicotinoids thiamethoxam and clothianidin.
Reduced longevity and sperm quality
The study showed that males maintained in the laboratory after colony-level exposure had a shorter lifespan and produced fewer living sperm. This could have important consequences for colonies because queens, which are essential to colony functioning, must be properly inseminated with healthy sperm from multiple males. Factors affecting the health of drones could therefore have profound consequences not just for the queen, but for the entire colony, as replacement of poorly mated queens is resource intensive and not without risks.
…
Lehi
-
3 hours ago, Auzy said:
Wow there's lots of history behind it. Thanks for the info, Lehi.
I feel a bit like Mormon: I didn't tell you 1/100 of what there is.
Lehi
-
5 minutes ago, james12 said:
This statement has some errors, and if you believe what you wrote then there is some misunderstanding regarding the Holy Ghost.
And we wonder who appointed you to define doctrine.
Lehi
-
8 minutes ago, james12 said:
At other times I have seen where we attempt to hide part of our doctrine in an attempt to appear more main stream Christian.
You can't possibly be lumping me in to such a class.
Of all the Christians someone could mistake me being, "main stream" ain't on the list.
Lehi
-
6 minutes ago, james12 said:
it was clear from your previous posts that you did not understand the nature of the Holy Ghost.
And I submit that you don't know what I know, and that you are not in a position to judge, and that your assumptions are erroneous.
Lehi
-
10 minutes ago, james12 said:
Yes, in the end the truth of this matter will be left to personal revelation. But I like Joseph want to see truth in all it's bearings and hug it to my bosom when things of great import are passed over without serious thought.
There's no problem with that. It's discussing, especially in a public forum like this, where the problems arise.
Heber C. Kimball once said that he didn't share his insights/revelations even with his wife because, when he did, the Lord stopped showing him new stuff.
Lehi
-
3 minutes ago, james12 said:
you can of course comment on Joseph's quotes. You do not need to know them in full to provide a comment. Nor are you ignorant on how to gain further light and knowledge.
What you say above is true. But I cannot divulge what I may or may not know on the matter: it would be vulgar.
Lehi
-
37 minutes ago, james12 said:
There are two statements of Joseph regarding the Holy Ghost which deserve serious consideration.
QuoteThe Holy Ghost is yet a spiritual body and is waiting to take to himself a body, as the Savior did. [Joseph Smith, Encyclopedia of Joseph Smith’s Teachings, edited by Larry E. Dahl and Donald Q. Cannon (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1997)]
QuoteThe Holy Ghost is now in a state of probation which if he should perform in righteousness he may pass through the same or a similar course of things that the Son has. (Joseph Smith, The Words of Joseph Smith, p. 245; Sabbath address, Nauvoo, 27 August 1843. Reported by Franklin D. Richards.)
And, without further light and knowledge, how could we possibly comment on these? And, with that light and knowledge, who would want to divulge* the sacred whisperings of the Spirit?
* divulge, from the Latin, to make common or vulgar.Lehi
-
9 hours ago, Zarahemla said:
should we worry about all the wealthy mormons becoming prideful and following the patterns of the people in the Book of Mormon?
Yes.
The Brethren already are. In a stake conference several years ago, one of them spoke and said that the rich kids from Sandy, Ut, were not becoming good missionaries because they couldn't do without their phone, computers, cars, and other toys.
And that's just one indicator.
But we should also worry about the "poor" Saints who have the same values and goals, the only difference being they can't afford them.
Lehi
-
10 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:
Foreknowledge does go beyond prediction--no matter how perfect. It suggests that God knows--with absolute certainty--what each of us will do. Since God is perfect, and he has in his mind what we will do, and he created us, the thinking goes that we do not truly have a choice. After all, whatever is in God's mind MUST happen. We simply do not agree. God granted us free will. We are responsible for our every choice.
So, when did you get baptized?
Lehi
-
8 hours ago, NonDeviant said:
I remember when my son was living with his girlfriend, and one time asked if they could spend the night in my home. I said NO that would not be appropriate. …
Now, if my niece and her same-sex spouse come to my part of the country and stop by to visit with the hope of having a place to stay; What do I say?
You need to be consistent. Immorality is immorality, irrespective of the laws (many of which are extraordinarily immoral).
Lehi
- NonDeviant and unixknight
-
2
-
13 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:
there's a belief in the DOE that if ("privileged") parents would quit helping their kids with their homework
At least one grtf-welfare school district has toyed with the idea of requesting or forbidding parents from "helping" their children, or even reading to them, since it "tilts the playing field".
GRTF-Welfare schools were designed to divorce children from their parents (in Mann's own words, not mine). That's one reason there is homework: to take even more time away from family-centered activities and to re-enforce the "we know best" attitude implied, if not stated outright.
Lehi
-
34 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:
That was a great answer Lehi!
You are kind to say so.
Lehi
-
8 hours ago, Auzy said:
@LeSellers could you explain a little bit more about your first point? I'm unfamiliar with that and would like to learn a little more about this subject. Who is CoC? How did they end up with the copyright?
The Community of Christ (the name was changed in 2001, aIr, by the first non-Smith from the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). The claim that Joseph III and his heirs would always run the RLDS/CoC was poo-pooed into oblivion at the time W. Grant McMurray took the office. He resigned under interesting, and unspecified, circumstances.
When the Saints left Nauvoo, one of the important things they did not take with them was the JST manuscript. Emma had it in her possession, and refused to give it to the Church that was leaving her (by her own choice). As its custodian, she eventually gave it to the RLDS Church through her son, JS III.
In the late 1860s the RLDS decided to print the JST (they call it the Inspired Version of the Holy Scriptures), and formed a committee to make that happen. But, when they got the manuscript, they discovered that Joseph didn't have a "manuscript", he had "notes". Putting it together for the printer (a process called "engrossing") took years for the seven-person committee. They made a lot of choices about what to include and what to leave out from among the three versions (called manuscripts 1, 2, & 3), and sometimes made what most might consider mistakes by choosing an earlier version over a more difficult-to-understand later version.
However, one of the RLDSs sent Parley P. Pratt (who was intimately involved in the translation with Joseph) a copy of the first printing. He sat down and read it through, and said that those who had done it had done it well.
Earlier, John Bernheisel (I forget how to spell his name), a doctor, was passing through and visited Emma in Nauvoo. He asked her to see the ms, and she allowed him to look at it and take notes. He produced what we call the "Bernheisal manuscript". It is useful, but he made copyist errors and didn't do a complete transcription, so it isn't as helpful as we might like, but it does (or did) give us a view into the text, and a touchstone to the printed version's accuracy. He included his own interlinear notes, at one point saying "this I not understand."
Feelings between the LDS and RLDS churches were bad to horrid until the mid-70s, aIr. The only way for a Saint to buy a copy of the IV/JST was to get it from Herald House (the RLDS publisher). I got mine from Deseret Book in the mid 70s, but it was more expensive there than I could have bought it directly from the publisher. I think it may have been that HH wouldn't discount the cover price for DB. That's an assumption based on one experience: I haven't even tried to verify it. This animus abated about this time, and it was due to several factor, not least on the efforts of Robert J. Matthews.
The most important LDS scholar to review the mss was Dr. Matthews (A Plainer Translation: Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible--A History and Commentary). The thawing probably came about when he asked for permission from his friend, the RLDS Church historian, to examine the mss. This friendship had been on-going for years, so it was not a surprise that he granted it.
Dr. Matthews examined every page of the extensive mss, and the Bible needed to "decode" the text. He made hand-written copies of the mss and made identical (as far as possible) marks in his own copy of the Bible. See his book for more details.
Following the change, and when the Brethren decided we needed a better edition of the Bible, we got permission to use the IV/JST in foot- and end- notes in the LDS edition of the AV.
I could go on (and on, and on), but I hope this will suffice.
Lehi
- Auzy and Edspringer
-
2
-
9 hours ago, Carborendum said:
That was "Silence Dogood". Just taking care of a nit for you.
Sorry, going on a 68 year-old memory card is sometimes fraught with peril.
Lehi
-
3 minutes ago, NightSG said:
Wasn't average male life expectancy back then late 30s to early 40s anyway?
No, no!, a thousand times NO!!!
"Life expectancy" is not a useful measure unless you attach an age. The assumed age is "birth", so, while a neonate could expect to live 40 years in the i, his father, presumably at least 15, would have an LE of at least 60, and his living grandfather, aged, say 45, would have an LE of 70 or so.
All life expectancy tell us is that half of the people alive at a given age will be dead at another age in the future. Since half or more of all children died before age 5 until about the mid XIX, the LE at birth was necessarily low. but when someone lived to age, say, 20, his LE wouldn't be a whole lot different for a twenty-year-old today.
Lehi
-
3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:
I could easily be wrong; but I think the "evidence" for an older Joseph mostly boils down to third-century (and later) authors who believed in Mary's perpetual virginity and explained the "siblings" of Jesus mentioned in scripture as being from a prior marriage of Joseph. He most likely was several years older than Mary, but probably not much past twenty.
There's something to that, but the evidence I refer to is the fact that we don't hear of Joseph (alive) much past Jesus' thirteenth year. It was His mother and brothers who came to see Him preaching, and His mother alone at the cross.
Of course we have more, but this is the evidence I weigh most heavily.
Lehi
-
3 minutes ago, Zarahemla said:
we have a 1800s example of Lorenzo Snow at age 57 marrying a 15 or 16 year old depending on the source and fathering children. He was either 41 or 42 years older than his teenage wife? Does that bother you or was it OK in the 1800s?
That bothers me not in the least. It would not bother me today, as long as they married and both were in their right minds.
One of the big things I hate about grtf-welfare schools is that they infantilize children. Admiral David Farragut commanded his first warship at age 14. Benjamin Franklin wrote articles for a fairly large newspaper when he was less than 16 under the pseudonym Prudence Dogood. It's virtually impossible for an adolescent (which didn't even exist back then) to do anything of the sort. So they have regressed back to what we expect of them, which is, essentially, nothing.
Lehi
-
3 minutes ago, Zarahemla said:
What age do you consider the limit for the warning Jesus was talking about?
I think there was no "limit", per se.
But in the culture He grew up in, girls married at age 14~16, and there is evidence that Joseph was in his forties or fifties when he married Mary. I suspect it was more an issue of sexual maturity than a specific age.
Lehi
-
4 minutes ago, Zarahemla said:
But you'd have to condemn the early prophets.
No, there's a big difference.
48 minutes ago, LeSellers said:It sortta kinda depends on the difference between boys and girls, too. Mary was probably 14 or 15 when she bore the Son of God.
Lehi
-
3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:
Depends on the age. With Joseph Smith having been sealed to a fourteen-year-old or two, we're kind of living in a glass house ourselves on that one . . .
It sortta kinda depends on the difference between boys and girls, too. Mary was probably 14 or 15 when she bore the Son of God.
Lehi
Preferred Means of Supernatural Rapid Transit
in General Discussion
Posted
I read the story as well, but the tether need not be at the Equator. True, it will be more effective there, but even at ~45° North or South, it will still be effective. It won't be at 90° to the earth: it'll always be parallel to one on the Equator and radial to the earth's axis, i.e., 45° south- or northward.
Further north or south than 45°, the Earth's spin might not be adequate to keep the tether stable.
If we only had the technology to create a fiber strong and light enough to make it so.
Lehi