Mores

Members
  • Content Count

    1209
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Mores last won the day on July 17

Mores had the most liked content!

About Mores

  • Rank
    Beer Sipping Senior Bean Counter

Profile Information

  • Location
    Putting bread into the Piano Man's jar

Recent Profile Visitors

220 profile views
  1. Mores

    Lamb of God

    The OP mentioned the Topical Guide: Total of 14 references in the Bible. All but two are from John (Gospel and Revelation). Total of six references in the BoM with four of them from Nephi. D&C four references. So, the search string may appear more in the BoM. But those "references" found in the topical guide result in another distribution. I do find that to be interesting.
  2. You called it a "sprint". That's what I was referring to.
  3. Mores

    A Minority "Voice"?

    Well, hot air rises, so what do you expect?
  4. I doubt it. A 1-mile run is doable if it is just a fast jog or light run. But to do it at sprinting intensity requires a LOT more than a month or two. Any sprint past a 1/2 mile will only be 'doable' by serious and well trained athletes (and I use the term loosely). When Olympic athletes race the metric mile, every one of them feels something burning to the point of physical damage after about 800 meters. It is only after lots of exercise (with both mental and physical conditioning) can they push through this to continue at sprinting rates for the rest of the mile.
  5. Mores

    A Minority "Voice"?

    Well, of course: Well, yes, of course. We should let her say all the wrong things and get all the wrong words of legislation in debates. She obviously doesn't know English well enough to properly communicate her positions. Heck, for all we know, she's actually a far-right conservative who only believes in a religiously oppressive theocracy. When did he mention race?
  6. Mores

    A Minority "Voice"?

    by now we've all heard the quote by the ineffable (I use that word with consideration ) Ayanna Pressley. What exactly is a "brown voice"? I've heard of the mythical "brown note." But I don't think that's what she's talking about. And I don't know what a "black voice" is or a "Muslim voice" or a "queer voice." I thought the whole idea behind racial equality was to say that we're all the same. Race is only skin deep. I had no idea it went down to our vocal chords. I mean, Tim Foust proves that you don't have to be black to hit the zero octave range. And Michael Jackson proved you don't need to be Asian to be a sopranist. So, what exactly is a "minority voice"? It is apparently not enough that we hear people of different backgrounds, races, and ethnicities. She's only interested in hearing progressive people saying progressive principles. And if you're a minority with conservative views, you're worthless. Now, flip that on its head. Isn't that what conservatives have been saying for years now? We don't care what color your skin is or your national origin. We only care about your ideology and culture. You can change your ideology and culture and go ahead and join us. If you're a progressive, we oppose you. Not because you're a minority, but because you're a progressive. So, I thank Rep Pressley for agreeing with and reinforcing the conservative position on the culture wars. It really has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture. Thank you, Congresswoman. Thank you.
  7. YES!!! Those who get eliminated in the first two rounds get NOTHING!!! But that wouldn't be fair. The poor downtrodden low-talent individuals also need to make a living. Why should they get paid less just because someone else can kick a ball better than they can? That's discrimination.
  8. Mores

    New 007

    All the Bond films need to be assessed in light of the era in which they were made. The earlier films were made to old movie standards. None of them had the kind of budget or technology that we're used to seeing in today's big films. As a result, they haven't aged well. But during the era in which they were made, they fit the bill. There were the interim films that were somewhat modern and relied more on flash and the Bond theme and name than actual storytelling or film quality or acting or... They really weren't good movies. But they sold tickets. What can we say? The first real "modern" film was the reboot series with Daniel Craig. And Casino Royale still stands up by modern film standards. There really was good character development, good story telling, good plot twists, absolutely well choreographed action sequences. Craig ended up injuring himself to the point that he didn't want to return for additional films. He did a couple more. But he was offered $100 MM to do the next two or three films. He turned them down. I just realized that this may be the reason why a new 007 was required. Craig didn't want to do all the action sequences. He was really afraid he'd never walk again. The last few films with Craig are what you can use to compare to the films we're used to seeing today. As I said before, through the moral lens of a Latter-day Saint, there is a lot that makes the series out of bounds. But as far as the world of today... meh.
  9. It never was. So, what's new?
  10. Mores

    You’re doing it wrong

    Apparently, several brands specifically have some gluten free lines. https://glutenintoleranceschool.com/is-ice-cream-gluten-free/
  11. Would I be considered Amish because I have no idea what "Stranger Things" is other than a TV show. It is a TV series rather than a movie, right? Right?
  12. Mores

    The Billy Graham Rule

    We're getting into semantics more than actual meanings. Wrong? No. Inappropriate? Yes. Why? Because it's just not right. So, it is wrong. Well, I didn't say that. Well, you said it's not right, so that means it's wrong... You see how that can go? You talk about the hedge. I see the story about getting close to the edge of the cliff. There are some who simply go running off the cliff. Others try to stay away from the cliff. We try to stay FAAARRR away from it. But what these feminists would ask is that men dance as close to the cliff as possible and even take up residence there. Then they're shocked, SHOCKED! I tell you that someone dared to fall off the cliff.
  13. Interesting article about that. https://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2006/06/nibley-and-the-scriptorians/
  14. Me and the Mrs. have been reading an interesting book on marriage. We've only gotten a few chapters in. But I found a startling parallel between marriage to spouse and marriage to the Lord. I'm referring to the metaphor of Christ being the bridegroom and the Church being the bride. I've considered people who have left the Church for various reasons, conditions, and attitudes. Some seem very distraught. Some are angry. Some are hurt. Others are just plain baffled. So, there doesn't seem to be an easy way to categorize people into one underlying cause. Similarly, I've considered those who are irrationally negative toward the Church. Similar things could be said of them. Now, I say "irrationally" because some people only know negative things and are therefore very rational in their attitudes towards the "phantom image" that anti-Mormons spew. But are there some who really know us, know the Church, and still choose to be negative? Yes. And there doesn't seem to be one underlying cause. When reading this book about marriage, he says that there are four causes (even though his book has seven principles -- remember, we're only a few chapters in) that drive people to divorce. One might actually say that there are four habits that push one into behaviors that will result in divorce. He calls them the Four Horsemen. Consider how they parallel how we feel about "The Church" or even the Lord. Criticism of the person rather than a behavior that may be modified or addressed. This includes things like "you always/never..." Contempt for the individual -- Even when the other side is right, the negative feelings are so strong, you try to find a reason criticize anyway. Ad hominem attacks. Defensiveness -- The mirror image of Contempt. It's using ad hominem to defend oneself. Stonewalling. -- Shutting down communication. This essentially means that a person has given up. There is a decision to just stop trying. This may be a defense against other worse behavior, or this may be a form of emotional attack. He makes various statements about which is the biggest factor. But I've pondered this for a while. My impression is that if even ONE of them is strong enough, then divorce is inevitable. But USUALLY, it is a combination of more than one (possibly all four) of these horsemen. If you see these warning signs, it is time to start thinking about how to turn those horsemen around and send them packing. While this is obviously about marriage, my thread is about how the parallels work to describe those who leave the Church. 1) I've known individuals who have been hurt by certain people in the Church. And because of this, they leave the Church. Now, I'd ask: Is that one person "The Church"? No. To leave the Church because of the behaviors of one or several individuals, isn't fair to the Lord who set up the Church. We can still have faith in the Lord, the system of beliefs, the organization He set up, and the worship services and practices of the gospel while still recognizing that no earthly organization will be without flaw. Just as no marriage is perfect, no spouse is perfect, even the earthly organization that the Lord set up will also be imperfect because it is entrusted in the hands of imperfect people. Continue to love the Lord and His Church even when certain people are being very human... and in some cases, evil. 2) If you have the attitude that something is wrong, then it is going to be wrong no matter what. But if we're going to give a spouse a chance to make up for things or explain things, or even express their concerns to us, then we need to trust first, then verify second. Instead, it is too often that distrust and suspicion begins the thought. Thus the end of that thought will never be good. 3) Defensiveness in a gospel sense is what we might term rationalization. Well, I should be able to love anyone I want. So, what's wrong with being gay? The Prophet is on the wrong side of history. We should be allowed to marry in the temple. And the Lord simply disapproves of the current Church policy. Yeah, I think that's a good example. 4) Have you ever tried to visit an inactive member of the Church? Shunning? Yeah, They sure do shun home/visiting teachers and ministering brothers/sisters. The author of the book makes a note of saying that infidelity is considered one of the top (if not the top) cause of divorce. He disagrees. The underlying causes are much deeper and of longer duration than a single act. The infidelity was merely the trigger. With some reservations and exceptions, I believe in 95% of the cases, he's probably right. Whenever someone leaves the Church, there are always warning signs. There may be a myriad of "triggers". And if we look at the triggers, we might all be tempted to say,"Well, I don't blame them." But the truth is that the seeds of discontent were already sown long before the triggers. Now, this is not to say that those who leave are always to blame. I'm beginning to realize that those who stay often share some blame as well. But too often, it is all one sided on the part of the one who leaves.
  15. You may be referring to https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/marriage-and-family-relations-participants-study-guide/part-b-parents-responsibilities-to-strengthen-families/lesson-14-teaching-gospel-principles-to-children-part-2?lang=eng Quite different wording. The underlying message is somewhat parallel. But the bald face meaning is not nearly what the paraphrasing (that you offered) would lend itself to.