Carborendum

Members
  • Posts

    2668
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    139

Everything posted by Carborendum

  1. Meh... who knows? I'm preparing for my lesson next month where we cover Daniel. And the linguistic analysis is very interesting regarding "garments" in Daniel. So, that was on my mind. When I first heard the talk, I was thinking about sectarians who insist that baptism isn't required for salvation. Whether it is or not, the rebellious attitude towards NOT being baptized will certainly disqualify you. Then I read the actual parable. Reading the actual parable and having the thoughts of Daniel in my mind, I couldn't help but see the parallels to the temple. At that point, it sure seemed clear to me. Regardless, I hold my temple garments to be sacred. What Bednar was referring to? Who knows?
  2. Yes, the comment was specifically talking about invoking the name of Yahweh. It is not used even once in all of Esther or S of S.
  3. Pusan, Korea. They also announced one in the north end of Texas. It is about half-way between Dallas and Oklahoma City. There really isn't much population in that area. But it helps those who are in the no-man's land in between. I wondered if they would do something similar between Houston and Dallas. The problem is that the temple attendance in Houston is so abysmal, that they have no motivation to build another one that may help the north end of the Houston district.
  4. I hope everyone heard the words Pres Nelson spoke in the Sunday Morning session. Very eye-opening. I am looking forward to the transcript when they publish them on the Church website. That was what a lot of people have been waiting to hear. I also thought Elder Bednar's words to be rather remarkable. I never realized the refusal to wear our garments was such a widespread issue sufficient to require an address at G.C. I know many won't interpret his words that way. But after re-reading the parable he quoted from, it is difficult not to. Jesus Christ is the answer. And here, I thought it was 42.
  5. Trump aside, my point was about the psychological effects of the Blitzkrieg. As things change over the next three-to-four years (and they will do so dramatically and quickly) it will be very easy to lose hope because the very notion of "how can we compete with such overwhelming odds?" will be ubiquitous. The tools of the adversary will be all around us. It will seem hopeless. Lawsuit-after-lawsuit will be brought to courts. And the great majority will be won by the side of the Beast. It will seem like there's nothing we can do. And truly, a lot of people will try and they will be killed, maimed, or incarcerated (or some combo of these). Many people will fall on their swords. But we need to remember the message of Ammonihah, and the lesson of Elisha. I know people will keep talking about drugs and Trump and whatever. But I hope I am able to get a message of hope out there.
  6. What exactly is your definition of woke? The standard dictionary definition of woke is not something that anyone on this board has a problem with (I don't think). I don't see anything new in his words. I don't see anything DTC said that anyone here would find outside of their own moral ideals. But regardless of the definition we find in the dictionary, that isn't how people "apply" wokeness in discourse. The objectional part of "wokeness" is when people take it to the level that intersectionalism should be the most important basis for making the most important decisions in our lives, our businesses, our politics, and our culture. It is further objectionable when the same people call anyone who disagrees with them "a Nazi" (or similar/related epithet). I don't see where DTC mentions that we give up any of our values or to give up our Constitutional rights or to change our definitions of words to accommodate anyone. I don't see where he called for excommunication or for being fired from their job because they disagree politically with someone else.
  7. This is not exactly what the OP was getting at. But it is still about the topic of Free Will. So, I thought I'd share it here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXCWpIgWpMk INTRODUCTION: This author introduces himself and his books. I've seen a lot of his videos. I've become fascinated by his insights. He indicates that: There is a 0.35 sec delay between an impulse to do something shows up in the brain to the point where the body begins to execute that impulse. People use this as proof that we have no free will. But research shows that the 0.35 sec is actually a critical element that indicates that free will is even possible. He goes on to describe the process as "Free won't", not "Free will". See video to understand why. The summary: We are not really responsible for the random thoughts and impulses that show up in our minds. If we're not watching ourselves and our impulses, the impulse will automatically become action. We are not exercising free will. If, instead, we use that 0.35 sec to stop the impulse, we are exercising free will. Hence "Free won't." That is really the limit of our free will. We choose to stop the impulses from maturing into action. Conversely, we choose to allow those impulses to mature into action. It seems that no other animal on earth has this type of activity in the brain. In other life-forms, that 0.35 sec is either severely shortened, or it simply doesn't exist. Hence, they don't really make "decisions" like humans do... or at least "can do". That's the big question. Even though humans have this power, how many of us actually exercise it on a regular basis? I believe that is why we're asked so often to "ponder" the scriptures, and to "meditate" upon them. It is during the peaceful times that we have the power to re-wire our brains to put the brakes on certain impulses.
  8. I've had some bad experience with canned meats that weren't heated up. It may just be me and my body. But, if we don't have electricity, there should be a source of heat to get it warmed up. That's a good idea. I like that too.
  9. The only time onsite solar or wind is a good option for a single family residence is if you KNOW you're going to be there for around 15 to 20 years. Otherwise, it is wasted money. If you're just looking for energy security, get a diesel generator. Get several 5-gal jugs of diesel, some sta-bil (for diesel), and store it.
  10. Here's another example. See the last phrase from the 3 Ne quote above: Hebrew example: In English, the "again" would be placed at the end, as is found in the KJV. But in 3 Ne? No. The word "again" is an adverb. As such, it needs to be placed next to the verb in Hebrew. It is very awkward in English. But in Hebrew, it makes perfect sense. The "thither" is placed last in Hebrew. But it is awkward in English. So, we place it closer to the verb, but after the object. I'm beginning to think this is a testimony to the validity of the BoM. The objection I have is: Why there are so many passages that actually seem to follow more traditional English when it seems to violate Hebrew word order? I came upon an answer: After the loss of the 116 pages, Joseph was told to start translating from Mosiah onward. Then after Moroni was translated, he was informed about the small plates, and was instructed to go back to work on the small plates (1 Ne to WoM). When they were doing their editorial review for the printer's manuscript, they edited a lot to make it more readable in English. But as they were getting near the end, the printer was catching up to them and they couldn't edit as much in the last sections of the translation. It is possible that 3 Ne 21 was about the point where the printer caught up, and they couldn't do as much editing. Consider how much of the BoM is between Mosiah and 3 Ne 21. We also find that there are a lot more cultural markers in 1&2 Ne as well. Again, a Hebrew linguistic quirk. Why did he separate out "wood" from a "straight stick"? Bows are usually not made of a single piece of wood. They are usually glued/laminated strips of wood. So, they'd be multiple pieces of wood, vs a single stick that merely needed to be carved. In English, when we "make something out of wood" we tend to think of wood as a "mass". But in Hebrew, it is spoken of as a plural (i.e. many "pieces of" wood). They don't say "pieces of" they simply make "wood" plural instead of singular. But the single stick used for the arrow? That was the singular. Compare to Exodous 37:1 and Ezekiel 37:16. They both use the same word for "wood" or "stick" (ates). But the former is plural; the latter, singular. Amazing.
  11. All fair points. But it seems that these explanations aren't enough. It seems like they are no longer trying. The "overwhelm" per @Backroads is probably a fair comment on that. But they could still try a bit harder. Or at least they could just call it a day and preserve the fond memories of a really good series of movies. As it is they're destroying the legacy.
  12. I just found something really amazing for me. I think it would fit perfectly with this thread. My missionary son (the one who got his Urkaine mission cancelled and is now in Layton, UT) found an old copy of the BoM in his apartment. It had some weird markups of various types. He said it was apparently a library copy, so it was probably marked up by someone who picked it up from a library. One thing he conveyed to me was that 3 Ne 21:1-7 had a marking stating: "Poor English, but perfect Arabic." He didn't know what that meant. But he knew that I'd been studying Hebrew lately (and he knew that Hebrew and Arabic were from the same language family) and wondered if I had any idea. I looked at Ch 21. Immediately I realized what he was talking about. I had never really thought much about the word order in the Book of Mormon. I was raised with it. I was used to it. And I have studied various languages enough to be able to decipher weird word order. But when the topic was on my mind, I realized those verses are absolutely terrible. Technically, it is grammatically acceptable. But stylistically, it's an aesthetic nightmare. So, I began understanding what @Jamie123 was talking about. He was right. There are some phrases that are terrible. So, taking a cue from my son, I looked up similar phrases in the Bible to compare with the Hebrew. I was AMAZED at the results. Virtually everything that seems weird (regarding word order) can be attributed to it being a translated work. Biblical Example: I think the translators of the KJV really tried to keep the word order from the Hebrew as much as practical. But there were some word orders that were so inscrutable that it simply wouldn't be decipherable in English. So, they changed what they felt they had to in order to convey the message. Not only that, but some verb conjugations had to be altered. Example: We use "will" to denote future tense. And we also use it to denote a commitment to do something. But both inflections (in parenthesis above) are actually present imperfect in Hebrew. I don't believe we have a present imperfect tense in English. The closest comparison would be the present progressive. And we seem to use that ad nauseum for everything. Hebrew has no progressive state, so it isn't quite the same as the meaning in Hebrew. I believe the translators did a good job. The context and voice of the English seems to indicate that the future tense is meant to hint at a present imperfect meaning. Now let's see what we read in 3 Ne 21. Notice that order of the direct object and indirect object placement. In English, we tend to want to drop a preposition where we can. So, instead of "I want to give a sign to you", we use "I want to give you a sign." Both are correct English. But stylistically, one is more preferable and more common. The verb "gather in" is worthy of note. When we have a split verb like this, we tend to put an object phrase between the two words. But in Hebrew, the word (asap) can be translated as either "gather" or "gather in". Regardless of the translation in English, the verb is complete as one word. So, the Hebrew word would have been translated as "gather in". Then the verb would have been followed by the object. And that is exactly how it reads in the BoM text. Also notice the use of the word "shall" instead of "will". I had always wondered about that. Why were both used throughout the Bible? In today's English, they both indicate a future tense. But it appears that (based on context) the "will" was used to indicate this "present imperfect" tense, while "shall" was used to indicate a future tense (in scriptures). That really gives some insight into the meanings of some passages of scripture. I haven't looked at the D&C, to see if it uses the same convention. It was fascinating to discover that this uneducated farm boy would have provided the word order that clearly indicate that it was a translated work from a language that was significantly similar to Hebrew.
  13. I just noticed this short from Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/efYeNDB7Mdk It shows clips comparing the new vs old Avengers of the MCU (duh). Clearly, the old is far superior to the new. It really isn't just the wokeness. The characters, the choreography, the cinematography, music, direction, set design, sound effects, music, and even the acting is just sub-standard. It isn't even men vs women. The ScarJo Black Widow vs her counterpart in the BW movie clearly shows that the old stuff was better. It is one thing to inject wokeness into the storyline. But to think that if it is woke, you can just make a bad product and still get away with it just isn't respecting your audience. There is a reason we watch superhero movies. It is escapism. It is hope. It is fantasy. But they give us a sub-standard product and we just don't feel like we've escaped from anything. We're just being asked to sit through a 90 min jr high school lesson on being woke.
  14. I was asking about the difference between Ukraine vs Syria and Chechnya. It worked in Syria & Chechnya. It did not work in Ukraine. I've considered that maybe it wasn't "just Zelenskyy". But it was the will to resist. That was really all that was required. The other nations just "gave in". Ukraine did not. And that was all it took.
  15. There have been too many instances that I've read recently to ignore the prevalence of this tactic on various levels and in various venues. ORIGINALLY: The Blitzkrieg was used by Germany as a method of overwhelming the enemy so quickly that they didn't have time to react. FALLOUT: But the secondary effect was more psychological warfare than a combat strategy/tactic. Showing overwhelming force tends to demoralize the enemy into thinking that there is no way for them to win, so they should just give up. It is a very similar psychological effect of terrorism. This has been used throughout the Cold War era and beyond. Russia's plan was to use this overwhelming force to put fear into the Ukrainian people, so they would just give up immediately. This is why they didn't have food supplies. They didn't have spare parts for tanks. They didn't even have enough fuel to sustain their vehicles beyond a few days. They honestly thought it was going to be over that quickly. It worked in Syria & Chechnya. Why not Ukraine? He seemed to forget that it didn't work so well in Afghanistan under Gorbachev. So, what was the difference? As far as I can tell, in Ukraine, it was Zelenskyy. Judging by the schedule and the presence of the fog of war, when Russia announced that Zelenskyy had fled the country, it wasn't just misinformation. Putin actually expected him to flee. That was the plan. With no leadership, the war would be over. But what he never expected was... Just imagine what that did for troop morale! Not only were they fighting for their homes. But they knew their President was in the trenches with them. This was not some political war that was motivated by the Ukrainian elites' financial goals. It was an unprovoked invasion against their homes and their families. Meanwhile, Russian men are fleeing the country to avoid the draft declaring "I'm not going to fight for someone else's political ambitions". Traffic jams. Flights are completely booked. Trains, boats, everything is full on the way out of the country. And many people at the borders of the other countries completely understand that they are very real refugees. (ASIDE:There is an interesting comparison between the Ukrainian military and the Russian military that has given a clear advantage to the Ukrainian troops. Yes, they still needed our ammunition and all our cool toys. But the morale and adaptability of the Ukrainian military has allowed them to get very creative and very good with those toys.) In a similar vein, all the SWATing that has been done lately (by both activists and by government agencies) are simply using this as a terror tactic to subdue the victims into submission. It's the political version of the same tactic. You know why Trump actually seems to appeal to so many conservatives? He's absolutely repulsive by most conservative values. Why on earth would we want to rally around this guy? It's because he refuses to give up. That's why this raid on his home. If they can get Trump to try to cut a deal to have them back off, they've shown that "god can bleed" (No, I'm not saying he's a god. I should think it was quite obvious. But I know someone is going to take it the wrong way. It's a figure of speech, duh). I, myself am hoping that he chooses NOT to run for re-election. I think he'd be bad for the country. On the balance, he'd be better than Biden. But he'd only be a lesser evil. But I know I am hoping in vain because part of his allure for so many is that he will not back down from "The Beast". That's what the people want. If he backs down, then who on earth will be able to withstand the machine? That is what TPTB want to happen. They want that psychology to work into all that would resist the new world order. They want us demoralized so we will not want to fight back. Who can resist the US military? Why try? You'll never win. Well, we left Afghanistan. And we left behind billions of dollars worth of military equipment for use by the Taliban. We ran like a dog with its tail between its legs. Whatever we may see in the next three to four years will bring tears to nearly all. But we need to maintain hope that we are in the Lord's hands, not the Beast's.
  16. Ann Heche (a while ago, I don't know why she didn't show up on other lists I looked up). Mike Hagerty (a lesser known star, but a recognizable face in many shows). Roger Mosley (T.C. from Magnum P.I.) Henry Silva (famous for playing "the heavy") The Queen (of course) LQ Jones (a lot of westerns) Larry Stork (F-Troop) Kenneth Tsang (Hong Kong actor) Liz Sheridan (Jerry's mom on Seinfeld) Mitchell Ryan (Character actor)
  17. That is kinda funny to think about. Right now, most people agree that the heart begins having rudimentary functions -- even it if is not fully formed -- at about 5 to 6 weeks. And they all agree that it is all there at 10 weeks. But just you watch, there will be "NEW RESEARCH" that shows it doesn't "FULLY" form until much later (probably 15 or 20 weeks). If the science doesn't agree with you, just pay someone to change the science until it fits your narrative.
  18. With the Dobbs decision has come many state abortion laws with varying standards. One common standard is the fetal heartbeat. As soon as the heartbeat is detected, then abortion either becomes illegal or subject to severe restrictions. <Disclaimer> My personal position does not support legislating abortion bans at 6 weeks. My complaint with the latest news is the run-around pro-abortionists are attempting by changing definitions to fit their narrative. In response to the fetal heartbeat laws, the pro-abortionists are now altering their definition of heartbeat. First Stacy Abrams made a poor attempt at this What she said, as phrased is simply incorrect and illogical. But she was referring to a condition that more informed individuals decided to word correctly. Planned Parenthood has changed the wording on their website. At least livescience had the integrity to clearly state that their article had been altered since the Dobbs decision. https://www.livescience.com/65501-fetal-heartbeat-at-6-weeks-explained.html And this website still shows the "accepted science" just a few weeks ago. The shift in the narrative all started several weeks ago when various health sites brought up the issue. Gee, where have I heard the "cluster of cells" argument before? If everything is just a cluster of cells, nothing is just a cluster of cells. They're basically taking the partial birth abortion argument and downgrading it to the fetal heartbeat condition. I guess, this is a sign of a win for pro-lifers. They're so desperate that they're running mental gymnastics to try to push their agenda. We'll see how this holds up in court. But one thing that the Dobbs decision did was make this a state matter. So, the Supreme Court will push any attempt at a national standard back to the states. Planned Parenthood will have to take this to court separately in each state that has such a ban. And each state will have their own modifications to the fetal heartbeat laws because of such decisions.
  19. I've spent some more time thinking about this. And I'd like to add some things to the conversation. Many people in the Church believe that everything Joseph wrote in what we have today as the JST is a full and complete "correction". Well, they are wrong on two accounts. He never actually completed all of his markups. He was martyred before that was done. While he restored much that was lost (e.g. Matt 24) many of his markups were simply commentary & clarifications. They weren't meant to be "corrections" at all. There is a very famous volume known as the "Matthew Henry Commentary". It is considered the hallmark of Biblical commentaries throughout Christianity today. It appears that many of the comments and clarifications that Joseph wrote were nearly word-for-word copies of some of M.H.'s commentary. Some items, it seems, were not KJV mistranslations, but because Joseph was commenting that FOR OUR DAY, the scriptures would be worded a bit differently. 1 Tim 2 is a controversial chapter because it tells women to shut up and do what their husbands tell them to do. (Eph 5:22 also is one that the woke crowd uses to justify the claim that the Bible was clearly written by bigoted men. Forget about verse 21 or 25, that will ruin their narrative.) I took a closer look at 1 Tim 2:15 in various translations. Some translations will justify this connection of "she" (in the first phrase) and "they" (in the second phrase) by using "women" in place of "she". But the Greek clearly does not say that. The Greek texts clearly show a third person singular inflection for "she" and third person plural for "they". So, what are we to make of this? Many Saints will look at the JST and reckon that the version we have is simply a later version that didn't preserve the correct word. I think that is a mistake. I believe that the translation we have in the KJV is correct as it stands. That is probably what Paul wrote. As I stated in my previous post, I believe it was more of a commentary to update it for our dispensation rather than a correction of what our current texts say. There was counsel in that chapter about not wearing flagrant jewelry or hair styles, etc. But as a rule men simply didn't do that back then. It is only in today's society of luxury and opulence do men even have the notion of doing so. They have historically men doing so have been outliers. But since the renaissance? Especially in the last 50 years? Yes, men need to have the same counsel. Let me bring you back to the last phrase of the chapter. "...if THEY shall continue..." It was always about the unity of husband and wife. And if women have a particular problem, it is the prophet's job to shut women down. If men have a particular problem, it is the prophet's job to shut them down. I can't tell you how many Priesthood sessions of General Conference we've had that basically yelled at men to stop practicing unrighteous dominion. I would very often speak with Empress after every general conference to see if I was guilty of any of these behaviors that I'd just been lectured about. Most of the time, no. But there were times when she said yes. And I'd make efforts to correct it. But do we hear much of that being given to women? It is common to believe that we now have split priesthood and "women's" sessions in General Conference because of "wokeness" entering into the Church. I don't think so. I've read the Ensign after conference. And I find it interesting how many times I hear similar "unrighteous dominion" type comments now being given to women. It may be veiled. But it is there. Before, it was more like "stop being so hard on yourselves." Now it is more like, "Women of the Church have a responsibility to..." And sometimes, it isn't all sunshine and roses. So, it if it was really giving in to wokeness, I'd say -- Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.
  20. While I agree that it is better than nothing, and certainly better than supporting it outright, I've just heard too many people put out such announcements when you know that behind the scenes they were really just laughing along with the "offenders". Words are nice. But actions are better. And when no action is taken, the words seem hollow. It would be nice for everyone to always think happy thoughts and say nothing but friendship and love for everyone. But I'd prefer honesty to hollow statements.
  21. The problem I had was that BYU was FALSELY accused of racism because of ONE fan supposedly shouting a racial epithet. And the school took swift action and even suspended the accused until the the investigation was complete. They found NO evidence that it ever happened. ENTIRE MASSES of Oregon students were shouting obscenities at the tops of their lungs with CLEAR religious bigotry. Not false, not mistaken, but clear and obvious. The school basically responded with "well, kids will be kids." Consider the residual effects: I still see liberals talking about how racist Mormons are as residual conversations about the BYU event continue. It is also clearly evident that the events in Oregon were a direct result of that false accusation against BYU still having the hearts and minds of leftists today. Since the school's statement, are any of them even condemning a single one of the Oregon Students today? This guy https://twitter.com/AerobicJim/status/1571291478302785537 Says it happens everywhere. You can see the discussion of whether it happens "everywhere". But I find it interesting how many downscreen disagree and then say,"But I did see that happen when I was..."