Carborendum

Yes, that was also Anatess's and her husband's reaction.

No. While I subscribe to the notion that, at the end of the day, taxes and fines often amount to the same thing, it was a fine, and an appropriate one. A fine is a tax for doing something wrong. A tax is a fine for doing something well. The filings did, indeed violate the law as they were done. The lawyer goofed. There really is no gray area here (from what I read in the settlement order). They were attempting some creative accounting. And they goofed. And as @Just_A_Guysaid, it was a slap on the wrist considering the funds in question. It was about 4/1000 of 1% of assets in question. And 80% of that was paid by the accountants/lawyers. Only 20% of the fine will be paid from the return on Church investments. That tells me that the Church is paying less than 1/1000 of 1% of the assets, and some accountant(s) at EPA will be fired. You can't lose $4MM on a single decision and not have some consequences... Unless it was one of the Principals at the company. Even then, he may be required by the other principals to pay something out of his own pocket.

Interesting related item: When Anatess visited with me, she and her husband talked about how in her "conservative Florida" they are dealing with a gospel doctrine instructor who proudly wears a rainbow pin on her lapel each week at Church. I'm assuming she wears it everywhere. The story was that this instructor was giving a lesson on "judging". In said "lesson" she told everyone in the room, (If Anatess is reading this, please forgive me if I misquoted you. But that was the flavor of the story). You know, I just gave a lesson a few weeks about about how we are ALL sinners. The difference is that the righteous, while still sinners, are also repenters. She was surprised I still remembered that from her posts here earlier. That was a few years ago. The thing about the movement is that it encourages people to continue in sin. In fact, it encourages a sin that most of the young, impressionable individuals would never have even considered. Yes, we all sin. Thus we all need to repent, not continue in sin. That is the primary problem (from a salvation perspective) of this movement. It introduces a sin that no one in their right mind would even consider. And then it encourages them to continue with religious zeal. Alma's counsel to Corianton: Happiness is not the belief that we don't need to change our way of thinking. It is knowing that we CAN change to become more like the Savior. And by the Grace of God, we WILL become like Him.

I was going to point out that this was a fine rather than a tax. But it made me realize that this wasn't about the paper-pushing at all. It was about the Feds getting a clear look into the assets of the LDS Church. I did a quick lookup on three of the major charities I'm aware of. None of them have nearly as many assets as the Church does. The closest one (among my small sample size) was the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation with nearly $50B in assets. Has any charity acquired assets comparable to the Church? I'm asking. I would guess that the IRS is going to make some changes to tax laws pretty soon. They aren't going to tax "the wealthy" or for profit "corporations." They're going to limit the assets of charities to a certain cap before they have to consider their "income" as "profits" which will be subject to corporate tax rates. This is a double edged sword. So far, the IRS has been the whip to keep the Church silent on political matters to a large degree. Take that away, and, yes, a lot of our tithing funds will end up going to the government. But it may also free the Church's tongue on political matters. OMT. The Church has been wise in saving money for a VERY long time. One thing that taxing a corporation does is that the corporation is thus encouraged to spend more to increase economic activity. But the purpose of the Church is not to improve the economy (at least not directly). Funds and assets are to prepare for the Lord's Second Coming. Well, I happen to know someone who can design entire cities from farms and houses to commercial areas and industrial complexes. And he'd be happy to be a part of that plan.

I think it is more important to determine what "mistakes made" refers to. This was a mistake made by the legal counsel which the Church followed. And the SEC did its job in enforcing it. Without knowing what the normal penalty is for such an offense, it seems that "settling" was acceptable to the Church and the SEC (after all things were considered). It's unfortunate that the Church had to pay a penalty for the mistake of the legal team or legal counsel they received. But such is life. At least the penalty will be paid by the investment returns rather than directly through tithing funds. I wonder what the legal requirements were for "transferring operational investment discretion to the LLC." Regardless, I don't know if we'd like such discretion handed off to an entity that did not have direct input/control by Church officers.

At best: I think he was trying to cover his own anatomy. Nothing more than that. At worst: He's a woke Stake President who wants to excommunicate all those who participate. He's most likely something in between.

Does that make me dafter than you or just daffy?

Hello, all. I just had to share something that I had recently discovered. I have recently come across what I had believed (past tense) to be a deficiency. Scriptures tell us what to do, but often don't really go into "HOW" to do it. I've been reading a book "The Happiness Advantage" which talks about all the positive things that happen when you're happy. The mind clears up. You basically become more intelligent because your brain functions better. Health increases. And it is actually contagious. A whole bunch of good stuff. So, finally, about 1/3 of the way into the book he finally acknowledges what I had been looking for all my life. A particular executive interjected to the author during one of his seminars, "That's all fine and good for happy people. But what about the rest of us? We'd love to have that advantage as well." Studies show that happiness does, indeed, come more naturally to some people. I do math without even thinking about it (Friday the 13th, for example*). And it takes a lot for me to get frustrated with math. Some people are simply happy as their default mood. And it takes a lot for them to become sad or angry or anything else. So, the author (Shawn Achor) gave this list of "to do items" that tend to infuse people with happiness. He has found that naturally happy people do these sorts of things by instinct. So, here is the magic list: Take 5 min each day to meditate. Concentrate on your breathing and just empty your mind of anything else except your breathing. Control that breathing. Manipulate that breathing for maximum comfort. If your mind wanders, refocus on breathing. It may take time to master, especially if you're as ADHD as I am. Find something positive to look forward to. Think about it often. It can be something daily (like coming home to my wife - or rather your wife - I mean for you... you get what I mean) or something longer term (like vacations, or seeing your children marry in the temple). Commit conscious acts of kindness. This can be just holding the door open for someone. It could be just offering a sincere compliment. The compliment requires that you are able to see good in other people. And that is also a sign of a happy person -- they can see the positive (or the divine) in other people, no matter who they are. Infuse positivity into your surroundings. People often put decorations and pictures of their loved ones around their office. I happen to know someone who created a "happy hoodie" :). I tend to look at Mumford** a couple times a day. By doing things like this, the environment becomes a subliminal message of positivity and happiness. You could also take a walk specifically in a beautiful place (like a park) that just lets you reconnect with nature. Why is nature so positive? Well, it has to do with biological and geometric markers. I won't go into that right now. Exercise. I've heard various durations of exercise and intensity. Perhaps any of the combinations will work. But the book specifically looked at a study that showed that 45 min / day for three days/wk showed improvements in mood that were similar to taking anti-depressants. Another combination in health circles is to exercise three times per week such that your heart rate is at your target rate for 20 min each time. The target heart rate varies with age and health. But for healthy people under 30, it is double your sleeping rate (which is pretty low). Spend money on EXPERIENCES. Money can't buy happiness if it is spent on "stuff". But the experiences you can purchase with money will actually bring happiness. Sometimes they can be cheap (like the amount of gas we spent to go to an Astros game with the kids using the tickens my client gave me). Sometimes they can be expensive (like going on a cruise with my favorite person in the world -- who happens to be the most beautiful and kindest and sweetest person on earth -- who happens to be my wife. Yes, she's MY wife. Don't you forget it). And I just spent a week on a cruise with her. Oh, yeah, baby! Think of experiences that can be memorable -- especially because they made positive memories with the ones you love -- memories you can reminisce about. Exercise a Signature Strength. This is especially effective if you use such a strength/talent to commit an act of kindness. I like to make homemade ice cream. It just so happens that a friend of mine is getting married next month. Guess what he wants at his reception? An ice cream bar. I got so excited. I HAVE to make ice cream for their ice cream bar. He's happy to see me make some. You all know I like to grow watermelon. The interesting part is that I seem to enjoy sharing the melon more than eating it. That's saying something because I grow the sweetest melons in the world. Interesting how the first two things that came to mind were about food. So, if you like to cook... Sewing? Crafts? Woodwork? Painting? Now, after I thought about it for a while, I realized that the scriptures actually DO say all these things. You really have to look for it. And it is amazing how much the scriptures are infused with these 7 steps. They use different words and terms for different purposes. But it is all in there. *Story about Friday the 13th: One day I was running errands with my mom. We started by going to work. This meant that she would spend about 1/2 hr talking with people while I waited in the lobby. During this brief career as a statue of "Sad Keanu", I noticed the desk calendar showed it was November, Friday the 13th. I thought that was odd because I noticed several Friday the 13ths in that same year. So, I began calculating the maximum number of Friday the 13ths there could be in one year. Several years later, I was at college playing a trivia game with my brother, sister, and several other people. The question was "What is the maximum number of Friday the 13ths there could be in one year?" I immediately submitted 3!. Everyone else just looked at me quizzically. Then they were surprised to find out that was correct. One person submitted that it was a wild guess. I said, no, then related the experience at my mom's office. Then they all looked at me as if I'd grown another pair of eyes or something. **Who is Mumford? My daughter, whom I call my Ladybug Forever (TM) likes crafts and sewing. She also has an infatuation with the noble creature of the seas known as the Narwhal. She asked what colors I liked for a stuffed animal. She made a plush toy about the size of my open hand and gifted it to me. It is cute as a button. I look at it and it reminds me of my Ladybug who loves me very much.

Doubts? About what?

It's all part of the same scheme. Colleges were cheaper before I was born, even after adjusting for inflation. But thanks to government intervention, colleges realized that they could just get free money. So, they raised tuition. Then government said,"See! Tuition is so high, we HAVE TO offer freebies!" Pell Grants were born. Then private universities wanted a piece of that pie, so they were willing to bow to collectivist doctrines, or, rather, standards in education forgetting the history of private universities as religious institutions. This was all to get recently minted adults (aka voters) into indoctrination camps, uhr, I mean public universities, to learn the merits of communism -- or rather, government assisted charity. Bottom line: If the government stayed out of it, the gradually increasing standard of living from the 50s to the 90s would have allowed a LOT of people to get higher education for a lot cheaper, without government indoctrination.

Remember, he's a lawyer. Understood? If I can be sufficiently clear and cryptic at the same time, we have been warned about having "study groups" outside of an official church setting. Seeing their round table, it sure seemed like it.

Can anyone explain to me what the problem is whether true or not? If he was hired by someone else as manual labor in a pit or mine, he got paid for it (like $1/day). Yup, he was a money digger alright. And? If he went searching for gold in them thar hills, how is that an illegitimate business venture? Successful or not, it was a business venture. Are they anti-capitalism? What exactly is the problem with using a seer stone or the Nephite Interpreters? Somehow the Urim and Thummim is perfectly acceptable, but the seer stone is voo-doo? I did wonder about he videos saying that the stone in the hat story was completely false. Strange since we have official Church records which cite Martin Harris and David Whitmer both talking about the seer stone. They debunk David Whitmer because, apparently, he only made those statements many decades after Joseph's death. And they point out that Whitmer never actually witnessed the translation process. So, if he knew anything, it was second-hand. Martin could have some credit because he was part of the translation of the 116 pages. They never really went into debunking him. They made a mistake about Emma. They said that she never witnessed the translation. False. She did translate the first few pages of Mosiah. But they simply didn't have enough time between the two of them. That's why they needed a third party to act as scribe (enter Oliver). But they make one point that all of her statements about the seer stone were made many years after his death. She never made any contemporary references to the seer stone.

I'm afraid your information is incomplete. We had official communications from the missionary department stating that they were REQUIRED. Unofficially, I asked about it and found... While technically, the shot was initially only required for foreign missions, There were too many who did NOT get the shot, hoping that they wouldn't REALLY be required. Others were waiting to see where the calls were before getting it, and found that their departure date was so close that they couldn't schedule a shot in time. Others simply "forgot" before going to the MTC. So, they started telling everyone GET THE SHOT!!! Because we don't know yet where you'll be called. So get it or we will not process your papers. As I said, this second part is unofficial. But the requirement for my children was on OFFICIAL documents.

I have one data point. My cousin hemmed and hawed about it for almost two years before finally telling us that she was leaving the Church over it. The thing is that it didn't even affect her. She didn't have to get the shot (her children neither). Their ward didn't require her to wear a mask. My family, however, was directly affected by it. Three of my children had to get the vaccine specifically for their missions. Our fourth is getting his papers ready. And has been told he needs to get the shot. But apparently, that requirement may be changing before he actually leaves. So... We were directly affected by it. No one in my household even has an inkling to leave the Church at this point. And we're about as conservative as they come. I really don't see the reasoning behind a vaccine causing a loss of faith, any more than hearing that Joseph Smith was a money-digger.

Jamie, my dear friend, I am truly sorry for your current trials. My prayers are with you. I guess I missed something. Jaimie, whatever you're going through, I hope the best for you.

I'm not sure where this came from. The videos were not critical of the Church or of Joseph Smith. (I have no idea who the JFS is or where they lie on the spectrum. I've only listened to these two videos). I'll give a brief summary: PART 1: (Only a setup for the second part. not required viewing. really boring) Rough Stone Rolling made a bunch of accusations of Joseph being a "money-digger". We need to actually look into the accusations to see if they are supported by black and white facts that are verifiable through historical records. Why? Because apparently a LOT of individuals are leaving the Church because of these claims. PART 2: Turns out that the claims cited in RSR are from critics who were jealous of the Church and the Smith family. The statements from the critics were all "verbal claims" which are not supported by verifiable historical records. The historical records show that the Smiths were very industrious people who were very honorable, God-fearing individuals. Many claims cannot be confirmed scientifically either way, but if the character of individuals is at the root of the search, we find that those who were critical of Joseph and the Church, they were proven liars on many occasions, and they led terrible lives.

Terminator 2: The kid asked if his wounds "hurt." The T-101 responded, "I sense injuries. The data could be considered pain." I highly doubt that we humans got a sense that he "understood" pain. I'm on the side of "no, she does not really understand colors (I spelled it correctly, a-hem) until she sees them for the first time." I dated a blind girl briefly. I don't know if she was ever able to have a surgery that would allow her to see. I didn't know the particular cause of her blindness. But she could identify light and dark. While she was a gifted painist, she had no idea about dancing. She said that when she danced, she could move with the rhythm. But she looked goofy. I asked her to show me. I do NOT mean to insult her. She was really sweet and pretty, very talented, and smarter than average, and I considered her a friend. She could sway with music on slow songs. But with a fast song, she really had no idea what to do. Well... I agreed with her. It was beyond goofy. It was really... well, you get the picture... even is she didn't. I'm only guessing that she had been told by others as well. How else would she have known? Even so, she really had no idea what was "goofy" or what she could do to change that. I wanted to teach her to be a more "normal" dancer. But I had two problems. I was only a typical nerdy dancer. I didn't have much formal training beyond the waltz. So, I was in no condition to actually teach anyone anything. All of the descriptions that I could offer were based on shapes and flows. I didn't know how to put it in terms that she could understand without visual aids. So, I was useless. Another example: I've been teaching my daughter to be a drafter (<- @askandanswer, please take note, a-hem). We were looking at steel members. When I was giving verbal descriptions, she had no idea what I was saying. And this is basic geometry. She knew all the words I was saying. But she simply couldn't picture it. So, I just did a google search to show her pictures. Imagine how everything just clicked.

I believe you're confusing God's people with people in general. I'm going to tell a couple of unpopular truths. And I don't like the fact that they are true. But I've spent many decades thinking this over. And I can't deny the truth. The culture of America has changed. No one can dispute that. Some things for the better. Some for worse. No one can dispute that. But every once in a while, we judge the past from today's societal lens incorrectly. And due to moral indignation, that incorrect judgment is pretty harsh. It wasn't "The church's policy". It was the common wisdom of the government and the society in which some things happened. And in many ways, the good outweighed the bad. I'll explain with an example of a family I know. The father was sexually, emotionally, physically, and psychologically abusing his children. The bishop heard the man's confession. The father was told to submit to authorities. I don't know the specifics of that conversation or what ultimatum there was. But he did so. At the time, the police didn't automatically throw the book at him. The policy of government (wide-spread, but by no means universal) to try rehabilitation rather than incarceration in SOME cases. The mentality was that if you take the father out of the home, there would be a whole lot of children who are in the foster care system or an entire family on welfare. And, let's face it, those programs don't have a great track record for raising children. And as far as abuse goes, many studies show that foster families have about the same rate of abuse as standard family homes. So, if you could rehabilitate the father, it would save a lot of trouble. One of the main parts of rehabilitation was that they would give the children and the mother assertiveness training. They would be sent through therapy so they knew that it was wrong, that they were not to blame, and that the father was a sick man. It was by no means universal. Many children were still taken from the home and the father incarcerated. But when judges & social workers analyzed the situation, they determined if it was salvageable, they would try to keep the family intact. This father was deemed to be one of those cases. The abuse was extremely rare. And the children fairly well-adjusted. So the decision was made that he continued outside of jail. He went through counselling, the wife and children were all armed with knowledge and awareness. The result was that the father was never "cured". But he was contained. However, the next generation grew. The father never abused his children sexually again. But he did end up doing "something" to two of the grandchildren (the tone of the report I got was that it would fall under sexual assault rather than rape). He was never allowed to see those children again. Now it is very easy to say that had he been incarcerated that it would have saved those grandchildren. Not quite. If he were in prison and the children in foster care... a very different outcome would have been much worse. Often, in those cases, multi-generational abuse occurs. So, the multi-generational continuous abuse was averted. In prison, he couldn't have been the father and provider of a family. Those children grew up healed, and strong. None of them were ever going to go near abusing their own kids. They are all very good parents who provide for, care for, and raise their children in righteousness. None of that would have happened had the family been broken up and sent through foster care. Although he was never "cured", his children grew up to be strong, righteous, & faithful adults who love and care for their children. I don't know the details of the two grandchildren. But my understanding was that they have gone through therapy and are healthy adults now. You may still have moral indignation about the abuse of these children -- as do I. But that cannot cloud our minds and hearts from the end goal which is to raise a society of strong, wise adults. And foster care (in SOME instances) is not the best way to do it. MANY cases which are investigated are completely irreparable. Foster is the only answer. But some were able to be repaired. Today, however, I do not believe we have a society in which rehabilitation is possible. Or at least... so rare that the number rounds to zero. So, no matter how bad some situation may be, we need to consider what that alternatives are. And when we compare horrible to catastrophic, sometimes, we don't really have a good solution because there is none. And without a good solution, we often deal with what options are available.

Yes. I did. And I've tried explaining why this recent summary is in line with that position. But I guess it still isn't getting through.

I find it humorous that with all this secrecy, a reporter from a European nation (I don't remember which nation) wrote a piece with a headline: the day the news broke about the sabotage. Keeping a real tight lid on it, I see. I'll give Biden (or rather his puppet-masters) a point for this one. I like it.

That is exactly the point I'm making. There are subjective elements of communication that are still clearly understood by the vast majority of individuals at a conscious or subconscious level. Being able to quantify things by applying numbers to them, they can become objective. One who is unfamiliar with Cubism will be prone to say, "What the freak is that supposed to be?" But if they were to lay aside their shock and simply consider, "Do I think it's pretty?" The great majority would say "yes. However, I'd submit that most people have a problem laying aside their initial shock and dislike to even consider the question objectively. Why is that? Because there are certain elements of beauty that are common to all human beings. Some of them are explicable (such as the law of averaging or the hypergamy of human females). Some are not explicable by any know scientific motivation. And they are not explicable by cultural norms. They are subjective. But that subjective judgment of whether something is aesthetically pleasing or no is shared by a vast majority of individuals across cultures and different experiential backgrounds. ON ANOTHER NOTE: I have to thank you for finally defining "rhythm" for me. After you pointed it out I realized that I've never looked up the definition. No teacher (and I've had many) has ever given the definition. I've looked through several of my old lesson books and found that it is not defined in any of the books. But people just expect you to know what it is. Given the context in which it is used (which I've heard literally thousands of times) I've "felt" the meaning. I had a sense of it (much as we have a sense of most common words without looking up the definition). But I never considered the actual definition. Thus I never connected it with my description which I gave earlier. They are the same thing. Thanks.

DOH! I hope you know that was unintentional. I've fixed it.

Freakin' Aussie!!!

Someone had a chat and found that ChatGPT believes uttering racial slur is worse than unleashing a nuclear bomb on a major city. Don't worry, they aren't programming wokeness into the AI. https://www.newswars.com/chatgpt-thinks-uttering-a-racial-slur-is-worse-than-allowing-a-city-to-be-destroyed-by-a-50-megaton-nuclear-bomb/ https://noqreport.com/2023/02/08/chatgpt-thinks-uttering-a-racial-slur-is-worse-than-allowing-a-city-to-be-destroyed-by-a-50-megaton-nuclear-bomb/

Fun with Pronouns: