zil

Can they not read the dull stuff before the lecture and then come and discuss the use of that dull stuff during class? IMO, that interaction / engagement is what helps students learn.

Apparently, the ink is named after Ham, the astrochimp...

Holy cow, dude. Am I supposed to understand what that question asks? ... half an hour later, after diagramming the sentence... What did I do to prompt asking me? (That is, I didn't think I asked for clarification or disagreed with you, just rephrased the idea you presented. Maybe I got that wrong...?) Meanwhile, my general answer is that the whole of scripture, plus the Holy Ghost, plus prophets should all agree with each other. If they don't, something's wrong. (At least, that's my answer unless I misdiagrammed your sentence.) PS: Get yourself a TWSBI Go and some Colorverse Ham #65 - good stuff!

Have you never zoomed out on a map to get an idea of relative location, or general topography, and then slowly zoomed in to the point of interest? That's the sort of thing PC is talking about. The OT is a long book. Most people won't (and many can't) take the time to read it in short order so that they can remember the broad picture, but a larger percentage can skim1 the book and thereby get the broad strokes, then, after, go back to reading and pick up the details - and, if they're making the effort, they can fit those details into the broad view they've previously established. 1Though it seems a fair number of people haven't learned to skim.

Of all the Church history sites I ever visited, Carthage Jail had the most profound spiritual impact on me - and just the memory does to this day. Whether the same would be true for anyone else, I have no idea.

So, as you may know, I work in a microbiology lab. The lab contains bacteria, viruses, toxins, dangerous chemicals of a wide variety (solid, liquid, and gas), some radioactive stuff, human tissues being tested, and sometimes animal blood (perhaps other animal tissues, not sure). Also, some testing involves heat that will badly burn you, and very sharp implements in the form of blades, scissors, and needles. Clearly, PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) is important when one is in the lab. I don't recall anyone yelling or anything akin to it. Compliance is maintained as follows: * Training: this includes documents and presentations which present the facts (it might help that part of new employee training is to either go get vaccinated for Hepatitis or sign a waiver acknowledging that you understand the risks of not getting it). It also includes amusing videos made by lab employees showing the dangers and why one wants to avoid the dangers. * Training is repeated annually or biannually, depending on the training, which includes a quiz and potentially hands on training and sign-off by a more senior person. * PPE is easily available and employees do not have to pay for damaged, new, or extra PPE. * There are eyewash stations and showers at intervals through the lab - in the hallway, no stall, just a shower head and handle and next to it an eyewash basin. Really, every time you walk by them and remember the training, such as removing contaminated clothing - right there in the hallway for the world to see - it's sort of a nice subtle reminder that you want that clothing to be PPE, not your shirt or pants. * There is a safety committee who may remind you if they see you without PPE, your peers will do the same (pretty hard to find yourself alone in the lab), and auditors (internal, regulatory, and customer) may be wandering the lab at any time, and if you are caught by one of them, it's not a friendly reminder, it's a warning, you have to redo all the safety training, and after n warnings, you get fired. * The culture is still a "family" culture - people know that management want them to wear PPE not because management don't want to get in trouble, but because management don't want you to have to suffer the consequences of inhaling powderized cow brain or bone, or getting a human tissue sample smack in the eye, or stabbing yourself with a needle that just dispensed some bacteria-infected media, or whatever. That last one is, I think, the most important - if people believe you care about them, not "the rules", they are more willing to listen to you. Also, if it's a group effort, people will go along with the group. So your students need to be able to sincerely care about others' safety and communicate that in a personal way. Writing people up is easy, convincing them you care about them is hard.

Oh! Thank heaven you found it! I couldn't figure out for the life of me where I dropped it.

Hmm. All I did was lecture myself about how if I was too lazy to go to the store and get ice cream I couldn't have any ice cream for dessert.

Maybe stick around a while longer. Carb is right - it was a light-hearted way of asking you to please explain your views.

Do they make that in stuffed-Snoopy size?

I'm feeling slightly compelled to find a stuffed Snoopy so it can take a selfie with mirkwood...

Yes, if we alter that verse, it becomes absurd to believe the Lord would ever say such things: Absurd.

I meant there are other places where he commands killing. To command both, well, hypocrite may not be the right word, but "inconsistent" wouldn't be strong enough a word. Not that it matters because that's not what the commandment means.

Fether, reliving the good old days when he was 2:

Or, by example: Possibility #1: God: "Lehi, take your family and flee into the wilderness for the wicked seek to take your life." Lehi: "On my way!" ...and then Lehi decides what to take and what to leave behind. Possibility #2: God: "Lehi, take your family and flee into the wilderness for the wicked seek to take your life. Oh, and leave your riches behind." Lehi: "Got it!" ...and then Lehi decides everything else about what to take and what to leave behind, but leaves the riches explicitly because he was told. In both cases, what he does is "because of the commandments of the Lord", but only in one of these possibilities does the Lord explicitly tell Lehi to leave the riches behind. And we don't know which of these possibilities happened, except that in the original account in the previous chapter all that's mentioned is the command to leave. And either way, there's nothing explicitly forbidding use of the riches that were left behind.

So was I.

Are you sure he was talking about a situation where you were facing a rapist or murderer, as opposed to something a little less deadly? https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2008/10/christian-courage-the-price-of-discipleship?lang=eng

Hmm. Commandment: completely agree that the commandment is meant to be "thou shalt not murder" - in addition to the great effort the OT uses to distinguish murder from manslaughter, there's also all the killing the Lord commands - if it really meant "never kill anyone", that would make God a hypocrite. Pacifists in scripture: have to agree, though one of the scriptures I linked above does go on about the reward if you patiently endure your enemy's smiting efforts - but this clearly means your enemy is not a threat to your life, because if he were, there wouldn't be a second, or third, or fourth time. In general, it is quite clear we are to love others, be patient and tolerant, slow to anger, allow the Lord (and the law) to take care of revenge (justice) if at all possible, and loathe the idea of taking a life. But it's also pretty clear that we aren't to stand idly by while the wicked go about murdering the righteous. And I guess I'd need more details on the final paragraph. I don't know what's in anyone else's head (be it Vort's or the pacifist's or the coward's). Some may well declare themselves pacifists in order to hide from the coward label (or even deceive themselves about their own lack of courage). I can also imagine other reasons for someone to choose to be a pacifist - but what does the "extreme" modifier mean? I don't know, and without knowing, I can't really say more.

It is all over the scriptures, most easily seen in the Old Testament and Book of Mormon - obey and prosper. But it is a community promise. If the community (or a sufficiently large percentage of it) are righteous, they will prosper. As you say, this is a natural outcome - because people are hardworking and honest with one another and care for the poor and needy, thus avoiding all the strife which destroys prosperity, while doing all the things which develop prosperity. The scriptures also show the dangers of prosperity. One could argue that this is visible within the US today. But it is also clear that this promise is for the community, not necessarily each individual - even at their height, the Nephites still had poor and needy to care for. Anywho, when examined in context, all these things teach me that God is generous beyond our imagining and rewards the righteous. But he also allows us to suffer (illness, misfortune, accident, at the hands of the wicked, etc.), but that's for our good. See, context explains everything.

I don't know a single gun owner who (a) is upset by people who choose for themselves not to own guns, or (b) thinks people should have to own / use / carry guns. (The inverse, unfortunately, is not the case - usually, the people who choose not to own guns themselves also want no one else to have them.) https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/134.11?lang=eng&clang=eng#p10 https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/43.46-47?lang=eng&clang=eng#p45 https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/98.22-48?lang=eng#p21 I'm perfectly content with everyone deciding for themselves how to reconcile all these principles. What I'm not OK with is someone telling me how I should reconcile them (or, more specifically, telling me that I should not be able to use a gun to defend myself against an attack - which by nature of the entity known as "me" is pretty much guaranteed to come in the form of younger, bigger, stronger, and/or more numerous - if it comes at all).

I knew a couple who met in a revolving door. I think they're still going 'round together. @Just_A_Guy What do you get when you cross a librarian with a lawyer? All the information you need, but you can't understand a word of it. Did you hear about the Italian chef who died? He pasta way. What do you get when you cross a fish and an elephant? Swimming trunks. What do you call 10 rabbits walking backward? A receding hareline.

If I post links to a couple of wish-lists here, maybe you all could just pay for it?

I understand the reaction - it would probably be my first reaction if someone had asked me that question. But it's as short-sighted as the woman who made the original request. Even if it were too late for her to get educated this round, we should never discourage someone who (finally) wants to learn how to vote responsibly. If something today or yesterday finally triggered a desire in this person to engage in this process, it should be encouraged - there's already more than enough to discourage people from our political process. If you feel compelled, a gentle rebuke, such as "Here are some good resources. I recommend giving yourself a month or so before the next election, in case you run into issues you want more time to research or discuss." would do the trick.

Yes, this is indeed the answer, for all of us who tend to over-indulge in a single thing. That said, I can understand the OP's thinking and would make the following recommendation: 1) Vote today. Presumably you've already been heavily involved in politics and therefore know the issues and candidates. The Lord has instructed us to educate ourselves on these things and then to vote. So obey the Lord. 2) Then start your political fast. As Jane pointed out, one doesn't need to be immersed in the muck of politics in order to get educated and vote. So step out after today's vote, and stay out until the next election draws near. That should help you lose your taste for the addiction and come back in moderation when the time comes. I'll compare this to something I did years ago: I used to carry a small amount of cash all the time. And I used to go to the vending machine at work every (working) day and buy a candy bar. I knew this wasn't good for me, but also knew I couldn't resist the temptation, so I stopped carrying cash altogether. After some length of time (can't remember), I became unaccustomed to candy bars. I knew I was safe when one day I was given a candy bar and didn't want to eat past about a third of it - it was too much! This was a wonderful feeling. For a couple of years now, I have used only cash in local stores. I carry cash all the time. But in all that time, I've never used that cash in a vending machine at work (for a candy bar - I bought OJ once when I felt like I might be getting sick, and an ice cream bar on a particularly frustrating day, but those are the only two occasions I can recall in 2+ years). Basically, I'm suggesting that perhaps your political "fast" will help you lose your taste for being in the thick of it, and when the next election cycle comes around, you'll be content to only do the required research on issues and candidates without spending all your time immersed in the debate / contention people tend to have.

My brother went to order one on Amazon and noticed a blurb about how if you were in Texas, the seller would contact you for a copy of your permit. So we went investigating and came to the conclusion that Texas law-makers are idiots (no offense, but seriously).