zil

I will not miss that aspect of my old job. (Of course, I won't miss anything except some of the people, but that's another story.)

You'd be surprised... When recording raw data in a regulated laboratory, if you make a mistake, you cannot obscure the original data. To make a correction, you draw a single line through the erroneous data, enter the correct data, then initial, date, and justify/explain the correction. Thus anything that is lined through must be initialed, dated, and justified. So, where I worked, there was a guy whose signature looked like his initials with several lines through them (a lot like a scribble). It was very common for people, upon getting his signature on something, to ask if he shouldn't initial and date it. His scribbles were easily distinguishable as his signature.

Sure, when all you're doing is reprinting the logo with precise specifications, it'll always look good, but I find it really hard to make a good-looking one when I'm the one writing.

And what bugs me is when people recount this exchange and entirely leave out the Son of God, as if the exchange went straight from "look, here's a virgin" to "now you see what the tree means?" without the birth of Christ falling between those two. (Indeed, it bugs me more after just writing that sentence.)

To demonstrate that the Son of God will be born in the flesh, into mortality - sent from God to men - and there atone for the sins of the world.

It's next to impossible to make this letter look good in cursive! I have great admiration for people who can manage it. J, on the other hand, is one of the best cursive letters. (But I hate the capital, cursive Z.) The capital A is probably my favorite to do in cursive.

Well then, maybe we can get @mikbone to give President Nelson a sympathy vote.

Except it wasn't only Mary that Nephi saw. The exchange went like this: Nephi sees "the tree which is precious above all" A: What do you desire? N: To know the interpretation thereof. Nephi sees Mary in Nazareth (is asked what he sees and replies that he sees a virgin...) A: Knowest thou the condescension of God? N: Uh, not exactly, but I know God loves us. A: The virgin will be the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh Nephi sees that she is carried away in the Spirit and then sees her bearing a child in her arms. A: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father! Knowest though the meaning of the tree which thy father saw? N: Yea, it is the love of God, which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of the children of men; wherefore, it is the most desirable above all things. In other words, Nephi recognizes that the tree is symbolic of the Lamb of God - sent because God so loved the world.... - the Savior, who will bring salvation and eternal life, which is the "greatest of all gifts of God" (D&C 14:7) - which sounds synonymous with "most desirable".

I can't believe @Just_A_Guy hasn't jumped in to help President Oaks in the voting!

A quote used in the article suggests that most members believe that in Nephi's vision of the Tree of Life, when he says the tree represents the love of God, he means (nothing more than) "God's feelings of love for us" - do you suppose that's true? I've always understood that everything about the tree and its fruit is about Christ, the Atonement, the Plan of Redemption/Salvation/Happiness, the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Surely I'm not the only one? Therefore, it makes me uncomfortable when someone wants to take that away and claim the tree means something else. Sure, as soon as one says it - [tree = mother, fruit = child] - the symbolism becomes obvious, but that isn't the same is it being intended or correct. Christ is the light and life of man. He is the living representation of the love of God. He is the only way. Whether you like that or not, taking bits and pieces away and saying, "No, this doesn't represent Christ, it's something else" just seems like a bad (and dangerous) idea to me. The word "gnostic" keeps popping into my mind as I think about this stuff. (Apparently that word has yet to pop into Firefox's dictionary.)

Are you saying you don't read the dictionary during breakfast?

What's going on is that certain individuals are too impatient to wait for either post-mortal recollection / revelation or revelation to the Church through the one with keys (whichever comes first), and in their impatience they grasp at straws and declare said straws to be clear references (if only one chooses to see them). I tend to think this whole line of reasoning (by this article and the ones referenced and others like it) is an act of desperation on the part of some individuals who simply cannot stand the wait.

If it makes you feel any better, for all we know, theirs was worse.

I once went to interview a blacksmith (friend of a friend) to ask some questions for a story idea I had. One of the things he mentioned (he liked to tell stories, and this had nothing to do with my question) was that for a very long time, blacksmithing was very secretive. Only apprentices were given any knowledge at all. Also, because the forge was dark (to see the color of the heated metal), others often associated magic with the work (secrets + dark = suspicion of magic). Point being, I suspect there are lots of things that were fairly closely held secrets and certainly never recorded in a way that would survive for archaeologists. Modern man likes to think he's so very much smarter than the ignorant souls of millennia past, but I expect they knew more than we realize.

Copycat.

Urim and Thummim. There's an "and" in there, like "this and that". Further, in Hebrew, the "im" ending indicates plural: ...(from the Bible Dictionary entry). Therefore, it's really, "these and those", thus, were. The Urim and Thummim were given to the brother of Jared.

PS: Welcome, @PeteT!

Here ya go:

Yes, I had to study it for a while, follow the line, figure out what he was doing. I see the R, I'm not sure why the intro is U like rather than a single up-sweep, nor why he starts at the bottom instead of the top like we're all trained to. Ending his R with a swoop to the s rather than leading into the U makes me wonder if he developed that R because he had to initial things a lot and it just became habit to do the swoop regardless and then add his name, if signing, or the remaining initials. I spent the past 20 years (almost) working at a lab where everything had to be signed or initialed (e.g. the first page was signed and subsequent pages initialed - sort of like your mortgage). After so many of those, you start to change both your signature and initials into something else - quick, distinctive, easy, legible - what you choose depends on the person and the environment. I can easily imagine that as a doctor, he had to do lots of signing and initialing and may well have been very deliberate about it.

It's a scripture: See also Numbers 23:19: Good verses.

OK, well, you all are no fun... I like President Eyring's signature best - those big swoopy descenders, the inconsistent capital Es, the skipping on the downstrokes of the B and E, the slight line variation - I'm thinking there's a fountain pen in his hand, probably a stub nib. President Oaks clearly likes broad strokes, and his capitals are all very unique - the D is a very efficient alteration to how we're taught to make Ds, while the H has plenty of extra lines - but doesn't require the pen to leave paper, and I'd love to know how he came up with that angle bracket (aka less than sign) in his O rather than a simple curve or picking up the pen like post people do. President Nelson's R is completely unique - I'm thinking the swoop to the s came first, then the second leg of the R is made as a lead-in the u. And I like the trailing swoops on his first and last names. His writing in general makes me wonder if he's left-handed - and if he is, he does better than a lot of left-handers.

Yes, that is interesting. I wonder if they do that intentionally or automatically. Mine is not remotely legible, but I spent 20 years in a place where I had to either sign or initial so often that there was no way I was taking the time to do it legibly. Apparently everyone's off doing work, or something...

I was reading an "official communication" today, and because it was so short, I noticed the signatures more than I usually do: ...and studied them for a while. I've decided which one I like best (from a strictly handwriting / visual / style point of view! not a spiritual, symbolic, metaphoric, whateverish point of view!), but haven't voted yet lest I impact the opinions. What do you think? Which one do you like best? Why?

Sorry to hear about your uncle, Unix.

Today's word search has caused me to have an epiphany: DESSERTS STRESSED I'm not sure whether this means the desserts themselves are stressed, or whether one should have desserts while stressed, or if desserts make one stressed, but clearly there's a link between being stressed and having multiple desserts. For the purposes of this thread, I'm thinking alphabetically - desserts followed by stressed, so avoid the desserts!