Carborendum

The original brand in the US is "Shop-Vac". Now there area a dozen other brands both large and small.

I'm having difficulty figuring out how that is connected. Again, I'm not sure if I'm following. FTR, I never read the short story. I saw the movie with Sean Astin. Perhaps that is different. EDIT: It is occurring to me that you're being sarcastic.

What is the law (legal system) other than man's feeble attempt at justice?

Ah! Of course! That's even closer than Greensleeves.

I have heard this tune before. But it was associated with a different song (lyrics). Anyone know where else this tune is used? EDIT: I just realized that it has similar patterns to What Child Is This? which is also posted above. Interesting how the presentation can be so completely different, but still have similar patterns so as to be reminiscent of the same tune.

Doesn't really matter if the box is opened inside a cave 500ft below ground.

Well, it was a WB production, I believe

Yes, it can be difficult. I had thought Secondhand Lions was just a small time film that didn't do all that well at the box office. But our eccentric family just happened to love in. Then I started noticing how many people have come to our home shouting praises over this film. I've stopped counting.

What? Haven't you seen Chronicles of Riddick?

The birth parents are alive, but divorced. Sealing cancelled. The mother is remarried. Father, no. Child is an adult. Yes, adult adoption is a thing.

I think that is a fair commentary. I've seen a number of the Daily Wire productions. And they seem to be shooting for what Hollywood could have been if it hadn't been taken over by the Woke Mob. And they do indeed have conservative political motivations and ideology. But that doesn't mean that they are shoving conservative family / religious values down our throats either. It seems that they are not at all interested in that side of it. And they also have a children's entertainment brand that understands what "family friendly" means. But that doesn't really carry over into the films they know are targeted at a more mature audience. They just want to make movies that are actually entertaining without the politics. So, yeah, they get crude in some of their films.

I can't find anything in the Handbook. Maybe someone can help me. If a child is born in the covenant, can that child be adopted by another LDS family and sealed to the adopting family?

I've figured out that I had a pretty arrogant attitude regarding the American dream. It was just too easy for me to say "I did it. Why can't you?" I was born in third world poverty, only to be adopted by a working-class American family which eventually realized the American dream by the time I left for college. Only recently have I come to realize how easy it has been for me. I console myself with the fact that I have, indeed, worked very hard to get where I am today. But the fact is that I have talents that many do not. And if it hadn't been for such talents/blessings, could I say that I'd still be as successful? Probably not. So, I consider the words of Orson Scott Card (via Andrew Wiggin) "You cannot take pride in the talents and abilities you were born with. One may as well take pride in being born with two arms. But you can take pride in what you did with those talents and abilities." I'm not so sure about that anymore. I look back on my life's accomplishments and realize that compared to others, yes, I did a lot. But OTOH, I really could have done so much more. And I feel some level of shame for not having accomplished more.

A long time ago, my BIL was teaching a lesson at church when my family was visiting them. He pointed out that the society seemed to be dividing into "tribes" as hinted in 4th Nephi. Then he asked, "What does that say about the role of the Church in these times?" I get the impression that he was actually trying to say that dividing into tribes is detrimental to society. But my response to his question was "The Church is our tribe." You seem to go along with that idea with the promotion of Nation, Family, & Religion. But there is something more to your response than mine. When I only named one tribe, there was some exclusivity to it that went beyond what is healthy. But the Nation/Family/Religion trifecta are tribes which can coexist and have proven to be the ideal basis of enduring, peaceful societies. We combine our loyalty to our nation which allows for loyalty to a religion which allows for loyalty to our family. And when our family values reflect the values of the nation and religion, then we're in a peaceful, harmonious society. Today, the tribes that we see are not loyal to any societal set of values that have withstood the test of time. All values, all loyalties are only newly formed. In fact, they're not really formed at all. They are simply nebulous concepts that tend to be more about excluding than uniting. My 2 cents.

Only exceptionally rare conditions which are so rare that they are simply exceptions. They have no "category" to include them into. For the vast majority of cases, there is a way to save the baby AND save the mom. The reason why people aren't looking at it this way is that we've had R v. W for so long, that doctors simply don't look at the possibility of saving both. They either abort or let the mom die. They don't even consider other options.

Welcome. I tend to believe that this is perhaps an age old discussion. What does freedom mean? And where do beards (and Word of Wisdom, etc.) come into that discussion? There is a difference between freedom and license. Freedom simply means that you have the power to choose a path forward. But every choice has consequences, both natural and artificial. Natural: If I speed on the roadway, I am more prone to getting into an accident (especially in heavier traffic). Artificial: If I speed on the freeway, A cop could pull me over and give me a ticket. (Also note: just because it is artificial, doesn't necessarily make it unjust. That's a completely different argument.) License, OTOH, simply means that there will be no consequences for any choice I make. But license is a double-edged sword. The actual goal of those seeking license is to have all the good stuff, without the bad. That ain't going to happen. If you TRULY have NO consequences from a particular choice, then your choice has had absolutely no effect. So, along with the lack of punishment, there is also a complete lack of reward. We do not really live in such a world where any act has zero consequences (good or bad). This principle is ONE of the basic principles behind the phrase: "To act, and not be acted upon." What about beards? WoW? etc.? First we need to differentiate "standards" (like the wearing of beards) vs "covenants" like the Law of Chastity, Word of Wisdom, etc. We do not make a covenant to remain clean shaven. It is a standard that many in leadership tend to submit to. And Grunt has done a good job of expressing such a sentiment. There are purposes for it. And if we submit to the standard, there is hopefully a good consequence that will result. If we do not, then there will be a different consequence. It is really just about the consequences. It is not moral or immoral. It's a measure put in place to hopefully provide a good result. Covenants are more than simply "do this, and you'll receive a reward." It is about some higher principle. And, while some of these things can change slightly throughout the years and dispensations, there is a higher principle at play. While consequences are involved, the higher principle is about catching the vision of what is right and wrong, or what is God's will or not. The idea of a higher principle is what makes a behavior a religion. True, even atheists believe in a higher principle. And they are loathe to call it a "religious principle." But looking at it from a human nature perspective, we don't really have a better way to describe it. People are willing to dedicate their time, talents, and means toward a particular ideal. That makes it a religious principle to that person. I could steal from people and get away with it. That would certainly enlarge my bank account. But I don't because I simply know it's wrong. It's the difference between believing that "it always catches up to you" vs. "I just couldn't live with myself if I did that." And if you get to that level with all of God's commandments, then you've gotten to having your calling and election made sure. You're no longer afraid of external consequences. But your own inner light (the Gift of the Holy Ghost) is guiding you to right and wrong. So, you are doing what you truly want to do. And it is in line with God's will.

No. It would not have been necessary. Entropy, my friend, is an eternal principle. It takes nothing to go down. It takes power to go up.

As of this post: 19.3 M views on X. 1.1 M views on Youtube. After only one day.

A particular problem with the women of Corinth was being addressed. Now, it looks as if the Saints in the Bay Area are promoting something similar. People think that this is about the simple act of opening one's mouth. The language is so archaic that people have no clue what this is actually talking about. Joseph Smith pointed to the word "speak" and said it was to mean "rule". Today, we only have one remnant I know of that uses this linguistic equivalence: Speaker of the House ( I'm sure @Vort or @Just_A_Guy could come up with more.). Today we say that the Speaker presides over the body. The word "preside" literally means to "situate in front of" or "before" the main body. That person situated before the main body is assumed to have authority over the body. In our parlance, they have priesthood keys (either directly or delegated) over the whole body. That's the bishopric and visiting authorities. To place any individual without specific reason to be there (such as speakers, errand boys, music personnel, etc) would indicate that they were of the presiding body. Relief Society would not be part of such. So, if they don't have a specific reason to be there, they shouldn't be there. When we have the traditional separation between the place where the presiding individuals sit, vs the speakers and other functionaries who do not "preside", we have clarity. But when some sit right along side the presiding individuals, confusion or misinterpretation occurs. That is why they shouldn't be sitting with the bishopric. I have to wonder how they can say that it was oh-so-important, yet it didn't mean anything. The are essentially saying, "We know what sitting there without specific reason means that we're part of the presiding group. But we assure you that we're not usurping authority. We'll just complain about it when we're no longer allowed to do so."

COMBINATION: a joining or merging of different parts or qualities in which the component elements are individually distinct. CONSPIRACY: plotting of evil, unlawful design; a combination of persons for an evil purpose. Sounds like a conspiracy is just the evil/secret combination.

I mean, it's the age old question: Why do bad things happen to bad people? That's what's on everyone's mind, right? Rapinoe didn't just "curse God for abandoning her" and then consign herself to a miserable death. She never believed there was a God to curse in the first place. She used her energy to proclaim that she was so special that if she didn't do well in that final game, it must be proof that there is no God. The difference between those who lose hope vs those who maintain it is not about how bad our lives have been. It is the mindset that it is all God's fault. Those who succeed are not the ones with "charmed lives". Many failures are made out of "charmed lives." Those who succeed are those who realize that God is the solution, not the curse. Wo unto those who call good, evil and evil, good. This is not just a commandment or an injunction. It is a prediction. It is a statement of inevitability. If we fail to understand the true source of evil (in this case, any type of misfortune) and attribute it to the source of good, we will not be able to reach out to the source of good to get us out of the evil we've fallen into. And if we attribute evil to good, then we will automatically set ourselves up for further evil by default. NOTE: I've read her name many times. Today was the first day that I actually heard her name pronounced. It was surprising. I thought it was pronounced RAH-pi-No. So, ruh-PEE-no is apparently the correct pronunciation. Good to know.

This may be a bit of a threadjack, but that video posts an interesting definition of "abortion." I don't know who came up with it. I don't know if the origin was from the right or left. But it is a seriously flawed definition. That definition can be accurately applied to induced labor.

When it comes to truth vs error, it is not just about mortal intelligence. No mere mortal will be able to compete with someone who has maintained his memory and has had thousands of years of practice to hone the rhetoric and logical twists that so called "smart people" usually don't fall victim to. But the Lord is always wiser and more knowledgeable than the Devil. We (as mortal men) may not be able to out-wit the Devil. But the Lord's words, not our own, will be the protection against the folly of the Devil.

I was going over languages with my family over the weekend (It's something we do. All my kids are into learning foreign languages). I realized something about the term "little sons." In many languages, there is a difference between using the word "little" vs. using a diminutive form of a word. And very often, a "little" something isn't necessarily meant to say the noun is literally small, but rather to convey a term of endearment. Example in Spanish: Grandma = Abuela Dear/sweet Grandma = Abuelita (Literally: "little grandmother") Even in English, parents refer to their adult children as "my babies" as a term of endearment. I'm wondering if such a term was used by Helaman to refer to his "sons".

Ben didn't handle that as well as he could have. In fact, I was surprised that he had the reaction he did. Most of the time, he handles these types of questions quite reasonably and logically. But I think I know why he reacted that way. Neil is somewhere between Larry King and Tim Russert (with a bit of John Stossel). King specifically took the most provocative questions from the opposing view (whichever side that was) and poked at the interviewee to get a rise out of him. Russert put his own politics aside (a herculean feat alone). Then he would find all the questions that had been asked in the ether and distilled them to the fair, but tough substance, and presented them to the guest of the day. But he did so in a very professional way without any rhetoric. And he wouldn't take political double-speak for an answer. Stossel clearly is mostly libertarian with a conservative tilt. But when he interviews people, he makes it clear that he's presenting "other people's arguments" to give the guest a chance to answer them in a non-hostile environment. Sometimes he'll use the rhetorical language. But his tone is clear that he's just "mimicking." Neil does some combination of all three. If you listened carefully to Neil, he was being somewhat sarcastic in his questions by throwing in the rhetorical language that the left uses to poke people with. But his tone was easily mistaken for sincerity with that rhetoric. Ben heard the rhetorical words from Neil as a signal that "only someone on the other side of the aisle" would us such language. And most of the time, he'd be correct. It just wasn't correct this time. He misread Neil. Later, Ben admitted that he was unfair to Neil. He said he should have researched Neil a bit more. He didn't realize what Neil's M.O. was. That said, I'd point out that Neil's methods may mean that he, himself, is a fair and pretty unbiased individual. But the questions he asked, and the way he asked them were, indeed, biased. And he did that on purpose. So, to call his questions "unbiased" would be incorrect. I realize that this may be splitting a hair. But I believe it is worth looking at. Neil, himself, admitted his tactics to Ben. He does ask biased questions (not his words, but accurate nonetheless). But he did this out of a sincere effort to be an objective journalist. The "slapping around" was not what I'd call it. But Ben did lose his cool. Very unusual. Those who think that this was a complete smackdown is clearly a biased assessment of the situation. I've seen him in many other situations where he took far worse questions with grace. And I've also heard him admit that there were many questions and points from the liberal side that are fair questions and positions. But he happens to disagree with the overall argument for various reasons.