Carborendum

Members
  • Posts

    3016
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    156

Everything posted by Carborendum

  1. There you have to do your research in Ezekiel 37 and Numbers 17. I don't have time to go over it now. But I might get back to this later today. Also D&C 128
  2. You are correct. It has not been revealed. But we can at least make an educated guess based on what we do know. Jacob said that the Lord will command plural marriage when He feels the need to "raise seed unto the Lord." This has two parts: "Raise seed" and "unto the Lord." During the Utah period, there was a mismatch of men and women. We had plenty of young men (youth) and plenty of old men. But very few of "family age." But the women were well distributed by age. By the time the 1880s rolled around, the demographics leveled out so that we had a fairly even ratio of men:women of all age categories. Not all men were allowed to enter into plural marriage. Or at least, not many really enter into the practice. There were a handful of men with a LOT of wives. And those family names dot the Utah landscape today. They were faithful families whose posterity has remained faithful. Today, we don't need the practice. And in many ways, it would be impractical. And we have a sufficient population to move forward. Not established doctrine, but it seems to be a logical conclusion.
  3. I just gave it to you. Look at the reference to 2 Ne above.
  4. I had a companion who shared with me the lineage from his Patriarchal blessing. He was "a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Of this there is no doubt." No tribe was indicated in his blessing. I'd never heard of that before or since.
  5. I've never heard of a concentration of Benjamin before. South America makes sense for Manasseh. Nephites. Lehi was from Manasseh. Most Saints should be from Ephraim. I don't know if anyone has taken a census. But I'd bet that of all those receiving a patriarchal blessing worldwide, over 90% would be from Ephraim. But to your original question: Where are the lost tribes? They're lost. I believe we can say that Ephraim is found. But I've heard some people say that we're technically still lost. I had no idea why they thought that. The Book of Mormon is for gathering Ephraim and eventually unite with Judah (2 Ne 29:13, Ezek 37). We'll know that the lost tribes will be gathering when we see another book of scripture that is held in the hand of the lost tribes. So far, none. The "uniting" will be when we take genealogical records to the temple en masse.
  6. That is the very argument you're making. Not me. You've just made a perfect argument for racist hiring policies of the past. This is a real curiosity. You cannot fire someone for causing psychological harm to themselves and others around them while at work (flamboyant transgenderism). But you can fire someone for making a political statement on their own time. I'll have to digest that for a while.
  7. I think you need to look more closely at the highlighted word.
  8. You may have heard that Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake received some envelopes with "suspicious white powder" in them. An unfortunate misprint was found in the CNN coverage. Wow. I didn't know that could be put in an envelope. But the following wasn't a misprint. It was an intentional deception. What Democratic leaders in Arizona have been attacked? I just did a search. The only "attacks" were typical verbal attacks on normal campaign trails. No one attacked any person in Hobbs campaign. Some random guy appeared to have broken into an office to do some burglary. But no attacks on any people. Yeah, makes them sleep better at night telling themselves that the attacks are not lopsided. I saw nothing on CNN about this supporter.
  9. Wow. I just found out I was right about the "test" that Nebuchadnezzar was using. Footnotes in our edition of the Bible indicate that the "Gone from me" is actually a Persian figure of speech. It means that he knew, but was withholding to test the magicians.
  10. Minority Report? Do we fire a person because he "might" be a problem? That's not how business operates. I said that they need to make a business decision, not a political one.
  11. This reminds me of something I did with my eldest son. He was kind of in limbo because he didn't feel ready for a mission. And he didn't know what he wanted to do with his life while "hanging around." At some point, I started charging him rent at $50/month. Every few months I'd raise the rent another $50/mo. This wasn't meant to make him go bankrupt or make me rich, obviously. I meant to just light a fire under him. He slowly started realizing that his income was not going to keep up. So, that's when he did the training for his "real job." By the time I got to charge him about $550/mo, he finally found a profession, the folks at Whataburger were very disappointed at seeing him go to "real job." But after a few months of hearing rave reviews from his co-workers, I realized that he was going to be fine. The lesson had been taught. I stopped charging him rent and explained that I just wanted to light a fire under him. He understood. And he was grateful.
  12. Whatever makes you sleep an night. If we did live in a truly free economy, that would be true. But we don't. We live in an economy where the biggest bank in America is being threatened by Congress because they are resisting elements of the ESG agenda.
  13. There is a fine line here that needs to be highlighted: If a business (like the NBA) realizes that they are losing money because fans are refusing to come to the games because one player did something stupid, then the business can look at the income, salary, and consumer activity and say,"Hey, look. You're making us look bad. Can you tone it down?" And if he doesn't, then they make a financial decision. An economic decision. A business decision. That's quite different than a business saying,"I don't like what he said when speaking his own mind on his own time. Let's fire him."
  14. Well, Musk just announced that he was actually TRYING to appease the left by agreeing to "some" moderation and censorship that he would not have been willing to do on his own. But even with some concessions, a whole bunch of sponsors have just said they are leaving the platform. This was enough to take Twitter from a profit-making company to one that loses $4Million/day. Big corporations are all in bed with conservatives, are they? Among those who left: General Motors, General Mills, Pfizer, and Volkswagen I don't know about Volkswagen. But the others are companies that depend heavily on government subsidies (or other funding that amounts to the same).
  15. These are funny. There are four episodes. But E1 & E4 talk about guns.
  16. Here is where I'd say, YES. It is oppression.
  17. I believe there is room to allow it. Let me explain why I felt justified in using the term in this instance. And you can correct me if my assumptions are incorrect. Usually, SWAT is only called in when there is serious threat of highly deadly resistance at the subject location, and it is usually for a grievous offense. Correct? Whether it was a fraudulent call from some anonymous source, or an appointed government official, I see it as the intentionally highly overpowered use of (if you'll forgive this) the "jack-booted thug" tactics by some overzealous individual whose worst crime appeared to equate to spitting on the sidewalk. And both are politically motivated.
  18. My wife and I had previously decided that we're not going to give any more money to Disney. So, we refused to get a subscription. But a friend has allowed us to share his Disney+ account. I thought it might be an advantage since we can now see the remaining Marvel movies that we hadn't seen yet. And that was about the only thing I was missing. But... Once we started watching them, I realized that they weren't really worth watching. The highlights eventually find their way to Youtube. And those are really the only parts worth watching. Everything else has gotten boring. And the one movie I wanted to watch isn't on there. So, I started browsing through other offerings on Disney+. Maybe it is just personal taste, but NONE of it looked like anything I wanted to watch. My son recently mentioned how the recent live action Cinderella (the Branagh version) was about the only live-action remake of classic animated films that people actually liked* (I posit that it is because it is not woke). But that was the one movie that is not available. Well, one problem with that mentality is that Beauty and the Beast was even more popular. But it is available. I still have access. But I haven't used it in over a month. *From a budget of less than $100million, it had a worldwide box office gross of over $500million. It enjoys a 6.5 rating on IMDB, and an 83%/78% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.
  19. Religion is the primary factor preventing the entire nation from falling victim to the woke mentality. Activism is very public. But religion is mostly private. We have networks. We have organizations. We have meetings. But for the most part people have no idea what our religious positions are. It used to be the same with politics. Our politics were private. And it was considered polite to avoid discussing politics at work or in social circumstances. Why? We didn't want the drama that unfolds. Today, we have an entire culture whose primary M.O. is to shove their politics/religion down our throats. And yet they cry about Dobbs shoving religion down their throats. make no mistake. Abortion is now (effectively) a religious rite, or fast becoming one. And that is the only issue that they are now parading out there as the primary reason to vote Democrat. Is anyone else tired of seeing (or at least rolling their eyes when seeing)women dressed in red robes with funky white hats? Point being that the left seems to think that because they are visible in their protest, they're winning. The private religious people of the land (which includes quite a wave of formerly Democratic voters who are going to switch because of religious conviction over the Trans issue) will show what private observance of faith can do to help a country survive spiritually. 2% Salt.
  20. I had to take some time to think about this. I've had a similar understanding as well. Yet, there was something about the way the prophet has been speaking about "surviving" in the coming years/days. I'm still wondering if I really understand. But here are my thoughts at present. Maybe I'll come across something as I ramble. I've been mulling over how much of our lives are really a result of how we "react" to what happens to us rather than what conditions caused us to react in the way we did. The primary observation that really has me wondering is comparing my younger sister to my younger daughter. Being highly acquainted with each of them, I am in a very good place to know what their emotional/intellectual/spiritual makeups were like. They are INCREDIBLY similar. But the trials they've both gone through were completely different. Yet, they both turned out to become very similar from a spiritual/faithful/obedience perspective. We may think that we turn out different depending on how tough we had it. In some ways that's true. But it is really interesting to me how two people can go through different life experiences and turn out to be about the same. There is certainly a different dynamic that we need to consider in mortality vs how we will be judged on the final day. But if we talk about how we "can't expect" people to behave well under extreme circumstance, it opens to door to releasing people from personal responsibility. Yes, I absolutely agree that there are extreme circumstances where it is extremely difficult for an average "good person" to resist evil. And we hope that we will never be placed in such a circumstance. But then we come across the idea that the Lord will never test us beyond that which we are able. Able. That is a very interesting concept for this discussion. Do these "extreme circumstances" pop up out of nowhere? Generally, no. I believe the counsel from the Prophet is addressing the situations we have the agency to choose the first domino. If we were not the ones to choose the first or second domino of such an arrangement, then I believe it would be just to place this in a different category. In times past, we can stop it at the second, or third, or... But at some point we can't outrun the falling dominoes. It is a poor strategy to hope we can stop the 9th domino. If we do so, the 10th domino will fall whether we choose it or not. So, we have a chance to stop the progression before it is too late. In past times, the dominoes fell more slowly. In the coming days (we're possibly already there) the dominos will fall faster. We may not be able to stop the progression. That is why we need the CONSTANT influence of the Holy Ghost. We need to stop the first (or possibly the second) domino from falling ASAP. We can't wait for the 5th or 6th. That 0.35 seconds may begin something that we can't stop. The human mind can't deal with the constant barrage. But the Holy Ghost can step in there when our mortal minds can't. I've rambled enough. I hope there is some pearl in there somewhere.
  21. I guess the real question is where it is justified to draw the line. And I don't have a final answer on that. But I believe that as a starting point we need to remember old school principles. No one can make you feel inferior without your consent We are in charge of our own emotions. Stick and stones... I remember telling my dad that my sister "made me mad." My dad simply responded "No one can MAKE you mad. You are responsible for how you react." I'm surprised how this was considered "common sense" when I was a kid. But today people reject it as a myth. Where is personal responsibility? But at some point, there is a tipping point where "outrage" and "words" can hurt like sticks and stones. Where do we draw the line between "persuasion" (whether gentle or harsh) and "coercion"? A lot of it has to do with how mature and emotionally/spiritually developed someone is. It goes back to the 0.35 seconds that I mentioned elsewhere in the forum. What do we do with that brief moment in time?
  22. I'm not sure why this is 1984. He CHOSE to donate this as a way of apologizing for what he eventually accepted was a bad move. It isn't oppressive when people simply give you a guilt trip until you realize you did something stupid. It is oppressive when they use violent or other "forceful" means to destroy your life if you don't comply. Some have said that no one can cancel you without their permission. That's not so. If you give your permission, then it isn't being cancelled. It is you giving up. If you are being defiant, and people with a lot more power than you (be it legal or illegal) begin to force you to do things or prohibit you from doing things... That isn't about your permission. That said, there are real 1984 stuff going on today. Mike Lindell Alex Jones Oberlin College slander against the bakery. People who are still in prison for protesting at the capital who never had a trial. The journalist who disappeared after an FBI raid Trump being raided The pro-life activist who was SWAT-ed because he set up a table in front of a Planned Parenthood clinic BLM & ANTIFA rioters tearing apart an physically destroying a business because the business refused to bow down to the woke mob. These are signs of 1984 coming to life. And many more... And remember that 1984 wasn't just about "oppression." It was really about government control over our beliefs and thoughts. They controlled the truth.
  23. Oh, good gravy, no. 🙂 None of us are perfect. And the Lord chooses the best tool for the job which is available at the time. That means using tools that are less than desirable. And that would mean that He will inspire some people for specific purposes because they are the right person for the job. I've been prepping for my lesson this Sunday about Daniel. A detailed look at Ch 2 (his dream about the statue) reveals something that I've never heard mentioned before. "Nebuchadnezzar chose to withhold the dream's details as a test." The plain reading says that he couldn't remember the dream. He only knew that it troubled him. But a careful reading doesn't say that was the reality. It only says Neb said so. What if he lied to all these magicians? What if it was a test? Only if these people actually had power would he listen to their interpretation. Daniel proved he had power from the Lord because he could discern the dream without being told what the dream was. What should have been most startling was that Daniel told him that while his kingdom is powerful now, it would soon be conquered and taken over. Another man in the king's position would normally have beheaded the guy for giving him such bad news. But instead, he gave them honor and power. LESSON: Neb did not want to be surrounded by yes men. He wanted people with actual strength, power, and wisdom to be his advisors. The Lord gave this man this dream. But this same man whom the Lord raised up also wanted to force these men to worship idols. The Lord may judge us at the final judgment for our final destination based on what principles He alone sees fit to apply. I believe that those principles may be different when "choosing the right tool for the job" while here in mortality.