JohnsonJones

The new temples have outward appearances, but the older temples have quality materials. I'd take something made out of the quality materials of the older temples than the new fall apart ones that have been constructed in the past few decades. I'm hoping with the renovations they do not replace some of the quality materials with the cheaper and inferior stuff they've been putting in the newer temples recently. Of course, other factors are the updating of the temple interiors to code, wiring, and other items which need to be updated (or make sense, such as earthquake proofing).

The Law of Consecration today falls under what many would call Religious Communism. However, simply using the term Communism (no matter what the context) sends MANY into conniptions no matter what it actually means in the context. Among most of the members in the US today (where the majority of the Church's strength lies) and in many portions of Europe you would find that members would rather fight tooth and nail than to live anything approaching what was actually lived previously in relation to the Law of Consecration (regardless of whether it was the type practiced under Brigham Young in some communities, or that of the Early Church (Religious Communism's actually defining item for many groups that use the term) under Peter. Most members in the West are married to the idea of Rich and Poor being established, not all being equal in economical matters, and that you get what you work for (if you don't work hard enough you are poor, if you work hard you are blessed with riches...etc) regardless of whether it actually is correct in thought or not. The chances of the Law of Consecration being utilized on the majority of the church, or even temple goers as it is practiced in the past, or even as it is now practiced in the upper echolons (the General Authorities) is just about zero. There would probably be a mass exodus out of the church if it were attempted, at least in my opinion. Money is the first of the problems, the rest of it would be even harder. The only common group to live something even close to the Law today beyond the General Authories would be the Missionary force, and that is only for 2 years.

I'm about to be off for the summer, so don't have a ton of time to type right now, but that does in a nutshell explanation.

His inference was different than what Mores claimed, and what I stated was in the same line. The electricity that solar generates can POWER something for MORE than 30% of the time, even if the sun is not out. Otherwise, the claims of the talk the gentleman gave really DOES ignore a LOT of what goes into power generation. The gentleman tried to argue that the sources of solar only generate electricity to a maximum of 30% of the year (which is actually untrue with current solar technology...that one is actually a pretty blatant lie...though he may be accurate in regards to wind power...depending on WHERE those wind farms are...the ones by Oakland going east actually provide far more consistently than the speech stated also) but his statements and discussion went more into PROVISION of power rather than generation of power in regards to availability and usage. Thus, though he said generation, his argument had nothing to do with generating power in subsistance, but how that power was useful in how it was provided in powering things. However, if we get technical, Mores went on a strawman argument in what I STATED and what I was focusing on, which related to HOW the gentleman was discussing power (generating was the word, but the usage had nothing to do with generation, but power usage which deals with how much power is consistently provided). In that light... My statement had NOTHING to do with generating...it was PROVIDING...and if one is technical, there is a world of difference between generating and providing. Even if the sun only generated energy 20% of the time, that is not specifically how much of the electricity it will provide, especially when one has a storage medium. The video was trying to provide a similar strawman argument within the first 3 minutes (if one actually listened to what the guy was saying in regards to his actual topic) in the same light. If one is all in with nuclear, they won't need to be convinced of his argument. However, the video didn't really convince a solar energy advocate from what I heard, as the terms he was using vs. the arguments he was providing was, as I pointed out within the first 3 minutes...full of fallacies in relation to what he was saying (which was especially true in regards to his generating electricity by switching the words generating and providing or utilization of electricity). On a different topic... A lot of the point of Tiny Homes at first was to minimize one's impact which did mean a composting toilet and a lot lower power generation (so one did not have to be connected to plumbing or have electrical hookups, etc). There has been a luxury tiny home market that has popped up (and brought to the forefront by shows on various channels), but the original tiny homes were more economical and environmental friendly (plus having the added benefit for those in places like San Francisco and other areas where getting a bigger house is exhorbitant in cost) for those who got them. Unfortunately, I don't have a ton of time to get into details (and haven't been on line a lot recently) as I'm about to go off on my yearly research (so gone a few months)

I know several reasons of why this was policy (though, as mentioned it could change) and was held in the past. However, even as conservative as this forum leans, me talking about those reasons probably could bring about a controversial subject which I'm not wiling to have pegged on me in starting, at least today.. However, in the past the reasons, I feel, held up pretty well in the logic of the time. In our modern day morality, some of those reasons may bring up controversial conversations in the same way we mention why ladies used to have to wait until they were 21 while the young men could go at 19.

Yes, as I noted, the AC unit could be problmatic. There IS a way to provide that energy (had a family use it on a camping trip, the size of their solar panels, going off of memory (they were large, but not that large...portable) I think were around a 6x4, but they ONLY used it to power an AC unit and a ice maker of all things), not sure how big their AC was though. Now that I think about it, I don't think it was necessarily an AC, but what one would call a Swamp Cooler (and ever since I saw them with that have been wanting one of my own). We went on the trip last summer. IT WAS in the Mountains out west, so in reality they ONLY needed the AC probably for around a few hours of the night. It depends on where you are in this. Out East, it could be impossible to have a lot of electrical use (running an AC) all night. My SiL works mostly out west. In Utah, depending on what temperature you want it, it is very possible to have a small AC run for the portion of the evening you need it and let natural cooling take care of the rest, unless you live around St. George. Most of the other areas of Utah, Northern half of Nevada, Idaho, Wyoming and Montana have a great deal of cooling at night already, so a thermodynamic housing would be more effective from an energy standpoint. Each building is different and each situation is different. It may be possible to run it off of solar, but it depends on how much energy you actually use (and that is really what it boils down to. With the energy usage many are used to using these days, living completely off of solar may be impossible. For others, it is completely possible. As for the 90% of the time....that's how much they gain off of their solar usage. It's just the facts. I know some (not you) may not like this and cannot comprehend how anyone could get that much of their electricity from solar, but no matter how they try to say it could not happen, it does not change the fact that this particular family is able to do this. The amount that was used varied, and what they utilized varied. They do not have heating from the solar specifically. They use electricity, but the method that they use is different than that , they had a pellet stove and gas heating. These use some electricity in starting and other factors, but the main sources of heating of those are from pellets and gas. They also do not have AC. One could say their electrical needs are a lot lower than what many use, but at the same time, they get most of their electricity from their solar. Sometimes, however, they use off the grid (and other times, they give excess to the grid). 90% obviously is NOT 100% in their case, but those who live in sunnier climates probably could get 100% on what they use. What it really boils down to is how much electricity one actually uses. When our family has gone camping I know of at least one family that actually DOES get 100% of their power (and that includes an AC unit of all things...in a tent which is odd) via the solar panels they bring with them. In some ways I think it may be more about LIFESTYLE than anything else in relation to how much power we demand to use, rather than what we actually need to use. Nevertheless and 24x8 is really small (smaller than many tiny homes even, it's on the smaller side of them) That gives you around 192 sq feet, though if you add a half level (like many do) that lies sort of like a second level but only on the sides of it, that could add another 95-100 sq feet for around 280-300 sq feet. That would be tough to provide enough electricity to with solar no matter what just because the roof area you defined is small and you have such a small area to work with. If you are living in a dry area I'd probably say take a look at the small type of swamp coolers/AC units the family (I mentioned them at the tope of this post) was using last year. With an area that small, just one or two of them probably could cool you off. They had batteries in them and supposedly (not tested myself and they didn't use them all night as the temperatures in the mountains might be 85 during the day, but at night fell to the 30s eventually) they would run for 7-10 hours on their battery power alone (the actual unit had a battery in it). That unit cooled around a 50 square foot, so a few of them or something larger might work. However, with that small a space for solar panels it might be hard to even get enough to keep the fridge and other appliances going to what you are used to. I'd imagine the Fridge may actually be a tougher problem than the AC/Swamp cooler if you are in a dry area. Of course, that ONLY applies to dry areas. Furthermore, outside of dry areas, those swamp cooler AC type units are useless. In the Philippines I imagine they would be next to worthless. Same would apply with Florida. Those types of units don't work well in those areas. In Florida, I'd say just live outside for most of the time and forget the AC as with that size of a roof and the solar would be a TOUGH problem to solve (if it is solvable). A pure AC unit probably take more energy than the Swamp cooler item, and with that small of a roof...probably hard to work out with how much you'd want to use the AC in Florida most of the time. It be easier with a larger surface area on top. Probably would be a lot easier with what I've seen more of which is around the 500 - 600 sq foot tiny homes, or at least those that are 400 sq feet. Tough problem to solve. Most likely, if you talk to a solar panel installation company they could come up with some solutions, but most likely almost all of them would require a drastic cut back in power.

I'm not as concerned about Climate Change as one may think...but I do plant trees. Unfortunately, I think I planted too many trees in my yard and need to have a serious trimming or something. We have a literal wall all around the house (well, not the house, but the land it is on) now. If I had to do it over I might plant something that grows a little less quickly.

Another interesting way to look at the scripture, though obviously not the only way... It is interesting that the Father's response isn't actually a reproval of the faithful son, but rather an affirmation that even though they celebrate the prodigal's return, the faithful son inherits ALL that the Father has left. This means that the younger son already spent his inheritance, and though he is reliant upon his father for support now, in the future if the prodigal is to remain in good supports, it will be upon the faithful brother to give of his own inheritance in that way. In this way he is trying to relay to the faithful son that he should be of great gladness that his brother has returned, for only if the faithful brother sees this in this way can the prodigal son have a measure of glad tidings and support after the Father passes and the faithful son receives his inheritance.

So what are you're thoughts on the history of alcoholic beverages in Utah over the past 50 years? Successful, unsuccessful, or something else?

Admittance...I actually have a son-in-law that works in the solar business. This is a biased comment I am about to make in favor of the types of things he puts in. They have several systems. For a basic system it will depend on HOW MUCH electricity you spend, and how many panels you require or want. For a tiny house you may have to have the roof basically be composed of solar panels if you are a high energy user. You also will want the battery so that you have energy at night. The biggest difficulty probably will not be a refridgerator (unless you are going for one that really is oversized for a tiny home...in which case it can be an energy hog), but the AC. An A/C unit can take a LOT of electricity. A system where the windows are put strategically could help a great deal with keeping the house naturally cool, but it would also depend on the size of the A/C and when you are wanting to run it. If it was not a mobile Tiny House (which is not normal, most create tiny homes with the entire idea of a tiny home on wheels rather than a more permanent structure) there are better options that could deliver power much more efficiently and regularly. One of the newest innovations has been in how to store the excess energy produced from solar energy (saying you actually create a system where you have excess energy) has been with the introduction of hydrogen storage. It's a new area of energy storage (basically use the solar to convert water to oxygen and hydrogen, the hydrogen is then stored in a tank and later used to actually produce the energy). Currently though, the more space you can allocate for panels and the better storage you have will make it easier to live off of solar energy. A tiny home is probably a harder problem to solve than a more normal installation, but they probably could get one that could give a LOT of the required energy you need, or, if you are willing to go smaller and use less electricity...almost all if not all of your electrical needs. There are several companies in Utah that have the ability to take a look at your electrical wants, the area that you could install solar panels, and tailor a plan specific for your needs. If you are not in Utah or do not want to use one of the companies in Utah...I'm not as clear on what is out there. My SiL is currently in Utah. A great majority of the solar companies in Utah that I'm aware of are willing to work with customers to find the best installation that suits the customers needs as well as wants. PS: Also want to add for ironies sake... When I visit Utah and we go on the family campouts and stuff, I don't bother with solar or any of that. I get an RV and that has an entirely different way of getting electricity and powering the fridge. In that way I suppose I am completely the opposite of preserving the environment while on vacation there.

And yet, that family gets 90% of their electricity (and get paid money back even from the grid) each year. Perhaps it is NOT MY math that is mistaken. The amount of energy from solar is NOT calculated on how much of the day the sun shines (and in fact, in the winter it has more dark hours where they are at then sunny days). The energy is stored in batteries, and apparently, even on cloudy days they still get electricity stored up. I'm pretty sure the math for solar energy isn't really reliant on some fallacy that if the sun only provide 50% of light for the years total hours it can only provide 50% of the energy. That's like saying...that since you aren't eating 100% of the time, you can't get enough energy from eating food...and that since you only eat food around at a maximum of around 1/8 of the day, or 12.5% (and that is if you take a LOOONG time eating, most are far less than that), you cannot possibly get 100% of your calories from food. That entire thinking that because the sun is only up during the day that is the only time that you can use the energy gained from it seems rubbish...and I'm only a historian and not a mathematician.

Well, I am not someone as trained in technology, but he said a fallacy/lie/mistake in the first 3 minutes of speaking that I can identify. He stated that wind or solar only provide energy 10-30% of the time. With solar technology now, I know someone in some rather cold and snowy and cloudy places that it actually provide electricity 90% of the time. You move someplace south of there (such as the contiguous 48 states instead) and you could provide a LOT more energy far more of the time. Of course, you have to be willing to wipe the snow off the panels for them to work...but they still work. Solar technology has come a LOOONG way from the days when you couldn't power your place if it wasn't cloudy. Now, cloudy or sunny, you can power your place. The bigger problem is the WASTE that it produces from the batteries. Soooo...not sure about listening to the rest of it. If I can identify a problem with what the speaker stated within the first 3 minutes...is the rest worth listening too?

So in that same light...where is the same approach to SSM in regards to legality, law, and a new SC case? Though there are many measures I support in it's regards, the way it was done seems so heavy handed and so strongly pushed and enforced it would seem to be a much stronger case that could be made in that regards. Abortion has been on a slow climb to the point where we are today (Roe vs. Wade really wasn't about a woman's right to choose, however, most feel that this is what it is today. This reasoning of a woman's right to choose was built up upon various other cases that came through via the 90s and later that solidified this form of thinking). Thus, striking at it's foundations still has to fight against decades of precedence. On the otherhand, SSM, or the way it is enforced and pushed upon the states at the level it is at does not have this level of precedence thus far. Of course, with the acceptance of it by the masses (at least by polls that are published by certain groups) it may be that a politician that wants re-election does not want to touch it with a ten foot pole. That being the case, why abortion and why now above any and other concerns. I understand the conservative court slant on the SC, but do not understand why this specific issue out of all the various issues conservatives are concerned about.

If Acts is to be believed, this matter of giving all you had to the church became a matter that was typical of many of those who entered the church. This Young man was told this, but it seems that later, this was actually something that was done by members. Furthermore, it may also imply that this had already been done by the apostles to a degree, if not completely.

Anonymous reporting was basically along the same lines of whistleblowers. It was to avoid the obvious lynching that some would have. My son-in-law went to BYU. One of his semesters there was the worst he ever had at any location (including the military, even the military didn't have as much going on in the dorms as what happened in this apartment apparantly). His apartment had every last roommate drinking, doing drugs, and being rather promiscuous. Now, he did not report it, I suppose that's just not the way he does things, but he did NOT enjoy going to the location he lived at (he did not participate in these activities). Eventually, luckily, someone DID report it. He came back from Christmas break to find an empty apartment (well, except for himself who had suddenly become it's lone occupant). No one knew who reported it, but he was glad someone had. The last group that had wanted to report them had gotten attacked by the people of the apartment (and their friends) and it had turned out rather badly, with police knowing of the attack but unable to press specific charges against specific individuals (attack was at night in the dark). It is for THAT specific reason, to allow people to report gross violations of the honor code that such anonymity was permitted. Of course, in such situations, verifications of such activity was also probably rather easy to obtain if an investigation was done over any length of time (afterall, beer cans and cigarettes in the trash along with other materials is pretty easy to figure out what is going on or at least build up evidence). I can see reasons for allowing someone to confront their accusers...IF formal charges are brought up and it seems things are going forward, but there are also times when anonymity is also probably a good thing which also allows valid concerns or actual violations to be reported without fear of reprisals on the witness or witnesses to the situation. The other problem that can pop up is once one knows the person who says they saw something...counter accusals seem to pop up pretty commonly. These can be even more problematic in whether they are actually true or false in many situations. The other two changes seem common sense. Knowing what you are accused of allows one to actually create their defense or at least be aware, and knowing the process also seems like it should be something one should be made aware of. People breaking the rules and laws who are caught in it seem to want to bring others down, and if they feel someone is accusing them who may actually be innocent is the one making the accusations, they will actually lie through their teeth to try to bring that person down with them. There are ways to deal with this in the US legal system (though in some cases it can be costly), but I'm not sure if there will be such a system in place at the BYU Honor Code office. If nothing else, such things could weigh down the office with a lot more baseless accusations than what already went through it. Overall, not bad changes, and some with common sense, with a slight worry or two tossed in. The thing that bothers me a LOT MORE about the changes is this. Take a look at those who were actually protesting this. A LOT of those people didn't look like students. They actually looked like they came from off campus from other areas specifically to protest the Honor Code that they, themselves, were not under. This feels like many recent things that have occurred, but this more so in that it feels as if BYU is bending the knee to social pressures from those who are not even students at BYU, rather than actually seeing what the majority of BYU students (who signed, agreed to live it, and are adhering to the Honor Code) actually feel about the matter.