Carborendum

Members
  • Posts

    2397
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    121

Everything posted by Carborendum

  1. I would laugh if it weren't so tragic. I can hold a glimmer of hope that things will turn around before the end of June. It will prove him right and me wrong. And I'll be happy with that.
  2. So, I just learned that a couple of weeks ago, (shortly after I began this thread) Jerome Powell (Fed Chair) has said that the economy is strong and "there is NOTHING to indicate that it is vulnerable to a recession." Nothing? We're already 75% of the way to a recession by the technical definition. But nothing to indicate we're vulnerable to a recession? SMH. I guess I should just tell everyone to ignore me because I'm not a financial advisor or finance expert. If the Fed Chair is saying there's not going to be a recession...
  3. OK, now I KNOW the GOP will NOT take back the house.
  4. I'm trying to help you understand something that is not right in your paradigm. You ask why the tree existed at all. It didn't. You say you understand it is symbolic (which it was) but then you discuss it as if it were real (which it wasn't). You can't mix a non-existent literal thing with the symbolic meaning and come up with a consistent understanding. The tree existed (symbolically) because that was part of the plan. It never existed literally. You may find it easier to understand if you fully acknowledge that fact.
  5. I find it difficult to believe there were literal trees that had these purported effects. So, yeah, it is obviously symbolic. So, what does the symbolism help us understand? As @Anddenex pointed out, there is the model of opposition in all things. The model of the Garden is that of our state of innocence that began in pre-mortality and extended on until we became accountable on earth. The turbulent time after partaking of the fruit and expulsion can be analogous to adolescence. During our state of innocence we already have full access to the redeeming power of God (access to Eternal Life). The sins of little children are swallowed up in Christ. If we partook during that time, it wouldn't have any meaning to us. Once we lose our innocence we are continually given choices opposing each other -- between good and evil (life/death). 3 Ne 26:5 Alma 32 1 Ne 14:7 Alma 41:5 As we choose evil, we must be baptized by water (Cherubim) and fire (Flaming Sword) to access that power -- the power of the Atonement of Christ. Being expelled from the Garden is symbolic. It is not that we're "forced" out. It is as natural as the aging process. It simply "happens". And while we are cursed, we're given a way out. It is not that the Tree of Life is now forbidden. We are now required to put ourselves under covenants and remain true to those covenants in order to access the power. Additionally, as cyclical as life is, I'd say this process repeats itself over and over again in our lives. Each time we sin, each time we repent.
  6. Joy spoken of as the "goal" in scriptures doesn't refer to simply that mortal state of being that we end up smiling all the time. It also isn't solely confined to that future state throughout Eternity. It is a myth that this means we're without sorrow (The 3 Nephites still felt sorrow for the sins of man). And we'll still feel sorrow in Eternity as well, as does God. Joy is the link and oneness with Eternity, with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. I believe that the time Jesus suffered and bled at every pore was a time when that link was completely severed. And beyond the requirements of justice and mercy, there was a reason Jesus, Himself, had to experience that complete disconnect. We in mortality do not experience such separation from the Father. But there are times when that connection is as tenuous as gossamer. When we have a connection with the Lord, there is a sense of strength and peace mixed in with whatever emotion-du-jour we may be feeling due to circumstances. As one recovering from depression, I say with consideration that the thing that prevents some people from ending it the moment they feel depression. Still, sometimes we feel that the link is so light that we cannot recognize it is even there. And for practical purposes, it may as well not be. Joy is linked to all that the Father has. The Glory of God is Intelligence. Intelligence is "light and knowledge". Light is always a question of degrees. So is joy. As long as we're not in Outer Darkness, there is always some level of light. The question is how much? With that light, comes joy.
  7. Well, that started with your OP.
  8. In the following video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYf--wwzOzA Mehdi Hasan decides to showcase the "double standard" which conservative media are exhibiting. While his characterization is highly questionable, the thing that bothers me most can certainly be considered reprehensible. He completely ignores the fact that he is doing the exact same thing, just in reverse. So, while he's criticizing others for having a double standard, he's totally oblivious to the fact that he, himself, is guilty of a double standard. These protests outside the private homes of individuals are certainly more likely a "personal attack", while going to the official halls of government is what is supposed to be done. Yet, which one is he, himself, criticizing? While we could argue ad nauseum about which protests are "largely peaceful" vs "a violent mob", I would hope we could draw a distinction between a person's private residence vs. an official place of business.
  9. First, we need to get semantics out of the way. It should be clear that our common English usage of "faith" vs "knowledge" are different than the gospel meanings (plural) of these words. In some gospel contexts, the meaning of faith is a higher level of understanding than knowledge. In other gospel contexts knowledge is a higher level than faith. In common English, knowledge is always a higher level of understanding than faith. But that meaning is different than gospel meanings. It is important to ponder the definitions before we truly begin to try understanding what is real.
  10. People always read into it whatever they want. People believe what they want to believe. People ignore what they want to ignore. I've known only a precious few (I'm not one of them) who have been largely immune from this tendency.
  11. No, I don't think we know the year either. My point was that people tend to give up on the idea that we're in the last days because business as usual keeps happening. The fact is that prophecies say that we're going to see business as usual throughout the last days. It isn't even the frog in a pot. We'll see tremendous periods of great prosperity. But the Second Coming will happen anyway, and we are supposed to do our part to prepare the way.
  12. LoL. You're right! I'm just a lot older than I think. I keep thinking we're in the 1900s. Hah. Fixed. Funny thing is that I remember writing 102 and 192 years. I knew something was off. But I fixed the wrong number.
  13. I was thinking you were promoting a special kind of corporal punishment for parents of trans kids.
  14. This is a common misunderstanding because people aren't used to dealing "durations". They're used to dealing with units. The first century does not begin at the end of the 100 years. It begins with the first year of that 100 year duration. Just as a year doesn't begin with Dec 31st, we consider the beginning of the year from the first day of the year (Jan 1st on our current calendar). There was no year zero. So, we count 3BC, 2BC, 1BC, 1AD, 2AD, 3AD. But each century is based on what is "first". Each century would cover ALL the years within the 100 year period. 100 BC to 1 BC is the "first century before Christ" because BC by definition counts backwards from Christ. 1 AD to 100 AD is the first century (implied AD). And 1AD would be the year Christ was born regardless of what date in that year he was born. ... 1601 to 1700 is the 17th century ...1901 to 2000 was the 20th century. 2001 to 2100 is the 21st century.
  15. That's a reasonable point. But it is still a matter of semantics. This is true. But when the very people who are called Jews are the ones defining it, we have to allow that theirs is a valid definition.
  16. The thing is that many people look at personality more than policy. He speaks about bipartisanship. Then he nominates a SCOTUS justice that was so far left that she refused to define what a woman was in front of the entire country. People are so taken in by personality and words that they don't bother to look at the substance of the individual or the administration. He's the exact opposite of Trump. And that is what some people mean when they say that Biden is moderate. Trump did many extremely conservative things. He said many off the wall things that most conservatives would disagree with. Biden says many things that conservatives would agree with. I can only think of one thing he's done that conservatives would agree with. He voted for the partial-birth abortion act. But then disagreed with SCOTUS when they supported the law. Actual legislation/regulation/positions he's supported: Affirmative Action Abortion on demand Gun-free zones Supported the Patriot Act. But so did nearly all of Congress. Republicans went off the rocker on this one as well. Open borders Supported "don't ask don't tell" but then switched with the political tides. Ditto for most LGBTQ issues. Now he's all for it. Green New Deal Obamacare Taxes (always sided with Democrats on any plan regarding taxes). Govt handouts If you pay more attention to the words than the actions, we understand why magicians are so successful. The other thing we notice is that everyone tends to think of themselves as pretty close to center. They have no idea where they actually are on the political landscape. So, a person in the "center of the left wing" thinks that their position is center for the nation. So, it's easy to think Biden is conservative by that standard.
  17. The bolded portion stood out to me in this passage recently. From what we read in Genesis, there was no warning, no building up phase with calamities in society. One day was sunny skies. The next day was the Deluge. But with the Second Coming, we have signs of the times. There is a build up. MAJOR CALAMITIES, and we're still celebrating, marrying and giving in marriage. A commonly accepted timeframe for Noah to build the ark was 120 years (this value is debated). It has been 202 years since the First Vision. It has been 192 years since the founding of the Church. All other significant events in between. All during this time, we've seen calamities and signs of the times that have been dismissed as a false alarm. I wonder if they were. I wonder if we're just making merry as in the Days of Noah. We may not know the day nor the hour of the Second Coming. But I tend to think that just because our lifespans are so short, we don't fully appreciate that we truly are in the last days.
  18. I think, for the most part, you are correct. But there are still a few moderate Democrats. And Trump did what he could to flip those guys off too. I believe the overall sentiment is generally correct because of an exchange I heard between an obviously liberal journalist and Rand Paul when he was first elected. I honestly don't know if that journalist even knew the definition of compromise.
  19. This is a semantic question. Jews today are the remaining tribes of Israel. They are largely of the tribe of Judah. But those few that are with other tribes are part of those numbered among the Jews. Most Jews today hold that either Abraham or Moses was the first Jew.
  20. Perfection is a horizon, not a destination. "In our sins" vs "From our sins" a good analogy would be "enslaving ourselves" vs "trying to escape bondage". In the study of addiction we find that there are many different reasons why people remain addicted. But there is only one reason they escape the addiction: They keep trying. No matter how many times they fail. They keep trying. Many who have just "resigned themselves" to captivity don't need any chains or guards. They will never run away. Even if they are rescued, they are never truly free. They don't have the mindset of the free person.
  21. Recently, a Georgetown Law professor (Josh Chafetz, no relation to Jason Chafetz): His tweet is now private so it cannot be linked to. Commentators said that the conclusion of his rant was that the "Capitol City Riots would have been perfectly legitimate if it were abortion supporters instead of MAGA fanatics." As clearly biased and possibly insane as this sounds, there is some kernel of truth to his idea that no one is really considering. Democracy is only a great system in that the success or failure is determined by the righteousness of the populace. No longer can unrighteous kings determine the fate of a righteous people. But if the people choose evil, then democracy shall reign. And the demise of the republic is assured. Either we judge and police ourselves in righteousness, or the Lord will declare (as Bill Cosby put it so eloquently) EVERYBODY! OUT OF THE POOL!
  22. I just realized that in my comments about my daughter's friend, I left out a big piece of context. It seemed so obvious to me because I already knew, but I now see that without that background, my description of events was almost backwards. So, now... the rest of the story. My daughter's friend (let's call him Devon) was a perfectly happy boy who was fawned all over by girls at school. He was "so cute" (say the girls at school). He was slight of build and had sparkly eyes, flawless skin, yadda yadda. He never considered being trans AT ALL. Still, many of his features and mannerisms lent to the supposition that he was either gay or trans. He NEVER CONSIDERED THIS at first. My daughter and he were friends. They played at each other's houses. They did homework together. They were each other's "buddy" on school trips. One Halloween, he shows up in a princess outfit. My daughter was more shocked than I was. Why would he do that? I didn't think much of it. It was Halloween. People wear funny things. She shook her head and went out trick or treating. That was when they were about 9 or 10 years old. (I could be off on that.) Fast forward two years. She told me that she was concerned about Devon. He was thinking about being a girl. I actually tried to be understanding. "He'll get over it at some point." "No, he won't," she replied. "His parents are driving him into this." Seeing the confusion on my face, she continued. "You remember a couple of years ago, when he showed up as a princess for Halloween?" (I laughed in recognition) "Before that they kept pestering him about being a girl. They were convinced he was a girl inside." (some discussion of the motivation and logic behind such a decision by the parents) "He kept telling them no. But they wouldn't stop. Then at Halloween, they convinced him it would be fun to wear a princess outfit for Halloween. Before that they wanted to take him dress shopping when he didn't want to." "After Halloween, they said that he'd worn a dress before, so he could wear a dress again. So, he did. It's been two years. Now he's been convinced by his parents that he's a girl." Most of the time he still wears pants and a polo shirt, just like many girls do. But he will just as easily wear dresses with a bow in his hair. Because the school we go to is largely made up of Christian (mostly LDS) homeschooling families, they decided to disenroll him Devon and his brother from the school. Their son no longer fulfills his role in administering the sacrament because he believes he is a girl, so he doesn't think he's supposed to.
  23. If obeying the civil law is good enough for Jesus, why don't we obey the civil law? We do obey the civil law. But on top of that we also obey a higher law that takes us closer to exaltation than the civil law alone. Jesus obeyed the civil law of both the Romans and the Jews. But he also obeyed a higher law. In fact, He asked others to do the same. Matt 5:21-48
  24. I feel you. And upon reflection, on one level, I agree. But I also side with Democrats when I say that he really didn't do anything to close the divide between right and left. We could blame the Democrats for that. But Trump really didn't do anything on his end either. Yes. And that is evidence that he could have done more to close the divide.
  25. JJ, I'll concede that we've given up on balancing the budget. This is a sign we've gone further left. It is a Democrat party hallmark. Why are you using this as an example of us going further right? I see it as simply giving up because even though we believe in it, we know it will never happen. The national debt has ballooned up so high that we simply cannot pay it off. We're running on fumes. And there is nothing we can do about it. I had thought your comment was saying that Republicans have gone further right. But virtually everything you posted (whether true or not) was a sign we'd moved left. I wonder if you are using the same definitions we are using. The VAST majority of what you posted has to do with Trump, the man, not the President. I get the impression that you're biggest gripe is only about TRUMP, the man, not his policies, laws, regulations, etc. Just HIM. The party has not become Trump, the man. The party had found that they find common ground on policies. I am able to separate a person from the policies he put into place. You complained about Republicans not getting rid of the ACA because there was a provision in the original law that prevented the Republican controlled Senate from doing so (if you're interested, I can go into it). But he did pass The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act which did away with the individual mandate starting in 2019. And that was the biggest complaint from conservatives. After that, it was just another handout program like Medicaid. At that point, what was the difference? And TRUMP was the one that pushed that through. I certainly hope you don't believe most Conservatives are like TRUMP, himself. If you don't like Trump, I agree. In fact most conservatives agree. Most people who voted for Trump agree that he's not someone you want to be invited for Thanksgiving dinner. I didn't vote for Trump the first time SPECIFICALLY because I didn't like the guy. I didn't like what he stood for. I thought he was just putting on a face to get elected. The second time, I voted for him because I could hold my nose enough about the man, and hope he got some of the POLICIES through. If you look again at my previous post, I'm not looking at individuals. I'm looking at the policies, laws, regulations, judicial decisions, etc. The things that FORCE us to do ABC or FORBID us from doing XYZ. I have many Democrat friends who state that they're not happy with MANY of the policies I just railed against before. But they voted for the candidates who made these things into law. They voted for executives and legislators who nominated and confirmed judges who would shape this nation into accepting all those policies. Ad hominem attack. Great way to start off a response. You criticize me for simply using a convention by which to analyze the topic, then you do exactly the same thing. Great. You really believe that I consider a party consisting of half of America to be completely monolithic? I'm glad you think so highly of me. So, here: Everything I said about the two types of liberals was an exercise to properly discuss issues that have affected our political environment today with a perspective on historical standards. Doing so requires that we define groups of policies. And this does not necessarily mean that any group (especially a very populous group) can by any means be considered monolithic. No that that is out of the way... I only visit Fox and MSNBC about once every month or so. I actually visit CNN on a daily basis. I also look at independent news sources and foreign news sources daily. How about you? I'm looking at what laws, regulations, policies, etc. are in place which either permit or require people to do A, B, or C. Not individual people. Whatever individual people believe is meaningless in a nation as large as ours. And, frankly, what an individual believes is none of my concern. What we can look at is that which has the force of law behind it. And by that yardstick, everything I said was FACT. Prove me wrong. All the complaints you made didn't. You initiated this tangent by comparing Republicans and Democrats, not independents. I neither said nor implied anything about independents. The fact you're taking it personally indicates that you're reading a lot into my words that I neither said nor implied. That boat sailed with Clinton. After that, no one cared. So, we stopped caring about our politicians jumping into bed as often as Hollywood. Another sign we've actually gone further LEFT. Again, a personal thing with Trump, not policies. Again a leftist position. It always has been. What did people think about the Vietnam war? Were those on the right or the left? I absolutely agree. When it passed, I was stunned. When Bush revealed the DHS, I said "this is the end of liberty". I've often mused whether they thought long and hard about a more Orwellian name... until the Disinformation Governance Board was created.