Carborendum

The Hambonies and the Shalomies. If you add some cheese in there between some unleavened bread, they were collectively called the Italian Submatzoes.

When we say we need to obey the law, which branch of government are we referring to? Legislative, Executive, or Judicial? Which is responsible for "the law"? All are in different ways with different distinctions. But they have to act as one. Do you think of your "relationship" with the legislature as completely separate from your "relationship" with the executive or judicial? Judicial activism happens because we tend to believe in the supremacy of the judicial. And that is not a good thing for the democratic process. In fact, it is quite dangerous. Hence Elder McKonkie's quote from the speech you said you read: The reason why the phrase "Hear Him" tends to be about the Son is that ever since the Fall, the Father has committed all judgment to the Son. Ever since the Fall, I believe the only actual words we've heard have come from the Son, except for the testifying of the Son (baptism of Christ, Stoning of Stephen, First Vision). But that does not mean the Father has nothing to do with us anymore. He still leads the Godhead. Thus, we still worship Him, just as we worship the Son and the Holy Ghost. Others have said it on this thread. But I'll echo their voices. You're trying to eek out a distinction where there is none -- except in your mind. Who is "Him"? It is "God". The distinction you should be focusing on is "Their nature" vs "The nature of our relationship with them". Their nature is that they are three distinct people with different identites, all united in one purpose. The nature of our relationship with them is that of a single body. We worship them as one. We relate to them as one. We HEAR THEM as one.

It has been said that this is the one question that theists cannot answer. I would say that it is one question that atheists will not accept an answer to. There is history to this question that needs to be pointed out. Thousands of years ago, people asked this question of "the gods." But this was not meant as an excuse to disbelieve there were gods or even "God." At the time, such an idea would be like saying that the stars didn't shine at night. It was intended, instead, to be a philosophical question to allow people to ponder and consider the nature and purpose of suffering in the world. While I don't know where, when, or who... the question was eventually turned on its head by atheists as a weapon to bludgeon the theist. "If you can't answer this question, then you are just an ignoramus who believes in the unbelievable." The atheist (who claims both moral and intellectual superiority in this vein) fails to recognize how ignorant this position is. "I refuse to believe in a God that allows good people to suffer." The fact is that the question itself is flawed in many ways. For example: What is considered "bad"? Why is "suffering" an automatic "bad thing"? What exactly makes a "good person"? Is suffering all you see? What have YOU done to alleviate suffering of those you cite? Regardless of the answer, how does that change the reality of God in any way? If you were God, what would you do that is different? How would you handle all the side-effects of going your route? Omnipotent By the very nature of reality, there cannot be a truly, completely, in every conceivable way: "All powerful" Imagine how completely boring that would be. Where would the glory be in that? Where would be the joy? What power can there be when anything can be anything else? Nothing is anything, therefore any power to do anything is meaningless. It is a philosophical paradox that if you were truly all powerful, you actually have no power to do anything meaningful. And if you can't do anything meaningful, you're really a failure. "Omnipotent" in previous centuries didn't really mean what many people think of in the absolute sense. It tended to mean two things: Having so much more power than any other being in consideration that they may as well be completely all powerful. He is the final authority. There is no higher court to take your appeal. He's the last and final word on whether you live or die. With this, we understand that there are certain realities that have to be addressed, if not obeyed -- no matter if you are all powerful or not. A Good Person The Savior said: With this one verse, the Savior pointed out that NO ONE has a claim on the title of "good person." We're all sinners. We're ALL fallen. Yet the atheist would have us believe that there are some among us that don't have need of redemption. How can we answer a quesion that starts out with an incorrect assumption that has already been pointed out? None of us has a credible claim to rewards in heaven earth. The late Milton Friedman said, "First of all, none of us get what we deserve. And thank heaven for that." The reality is that without a Savior, every one of us would be deserving of the pains of hell for all eternity. Think about that. That is how evil every one of us are. That is how terrible the nature of sin is. And if we had all the worst things in life happen to us, that would be justice for our sins. So, when someone asks, "Why me?" I might ask, "Why NOT me?" Yet we sit smug in our comfortable world where we can say "Meh, I'm a good enough person and have a good enough life." False assumption. False conclusion. Bad Things How do we know what is a bad thing? It causes pain or suffering? Sounds reasonable. But is it true? Read the following story: https://www.lollydaskal.com/leadership/good-luck-bad-luck-knows/ I heard a better much longer version that went back and forth to good and bad things to hammer the point home. But the point is illustrated sufficiently here. I know of a lot of things in my life that seemed bad at the time (Seriously. I was in the middle of long term unemployment and was considering suicide, literally) but with hindsight, I now see what good eventually came of it. Most of my life I've had "bad things" happen that were necessary steps to get me to another place where some really good things happened. So, how do we know? I'd submit that we simply don't. I could also tell you of some stories in my family history where an untimely death in the family turned out to be a good thing. An abusive situation turned a life around and many good things eventually turned out good. By saying this, I'm sure some smart aleck will ask, "So, you're saying that abuse is a good thing?" Well, live up to the moniker "Aleck" and you can miss the gold by looking for the sludge. Again, this is the attitude of the atheist who asks the original question. Third Parties Suffering/misfortune is required for there to be the opportunity to serve. This is often discussed as a commentary on "opposition in all things." Yes, it is. But it also says something about the nature of "need." We see people suffering all the time. But when we KNOW those people, then we tend to place them in two camps: Well, that's what they get when ... Oh, wow! That's unfortunate. We need to help them out. Even there we tend to make a partial judgment about "bad things happening to good people". But at no time is it an excuse to disbelieve in God. It is whether we would be helping or harming by offering succor to that person at that time. I'd submit that the vast majority of Christians use it as an excuse to perform some meaningful service. I'd also submit that the vast majority of Atheists use it as an excuse to disbelieve God. Thus we see that the "allowance of suffering" says very little about God. It speaks volumes about the person asking the question. Most of the time when atheist decry God's ambivalence to human suffering, it is just an excuse. How many of them actually try to do something about it themselves? Most don't. That's why the question was never about the suffering itself. It was just an excuse. And as an excuse, no answer to the question is acceptable. Nature of Trials Too often we think of anything unpleasant as "undesireable". Well, then why the heck did I eat all those peas (I hate peas). They're good for me. Well, so is kim chee. But no one was trying to force me to eat that all the time. We do some things we don't really enjoy because we know they're good for us. The successful person is willing to go through that which the unsuccessful person is NOT willing to go through. Let me rephrase. One who inherits the Celestial Kingdom is willing to suffer what the Telestial/Terrestrial person is NOT willing to suffer. We tend to think of "prove" as in a court of law or a matter of debate to determine if something is true or false. It isn't really just that dichotomy alone. Another definition of "prove" is These trials are not only to strengthen us, but to show what our true qualities and characteristics are. Thus, we go back to the nature of "Omnipotent". God is not to be revered because He overcomes simple tasks, but because He can overcome the greatest of challenges. Similarly, we ourselves cannot hope for great reward in heaven without overcoming great trials either. It has nothing to do with "what we deserve." It has everything to do with eventual results. In that way, we see suffering as simply a necessary part of life. And we tend to be able to bear it much more easily. ************************************************ I'm going to use my recent experience during this winter storm as an illustration for all this. During this winter storm, I did what I thought was supposed to be done. But I was rushing through all my preps. Then I prayed to have the Lord bless my efforts that they would be sufficient. But some "bad things" happened. A pipe burst in the well house. And a pipe burst in the wall of my house. These two things alerted me to some dysfunctional items of the plumbing at my house. I needed to fix them. I also learned a great deal from the experience. I learned a lot more about plumbing than I had in the past. I also have some drywall and framing work that I cannot do on my own. So, I can hire a friend who's been looking for work. And he's very good at drywall. I learned other things I need to fix for some future expansion I was planning. I learned about some things to NOT do with the shut offs that I had. We thought we were well prepared for the cold because we had plenty of water and plenty of wood. But one thing we discovered is that you can't stay warm on hardwood (oak) alone. You have to have a balance of hard and softwood (pine). We had plenty of oak. We had very little pine. I spent a bunch of time trying to split oak. Very difficult. My neighbor (bishopric) must have seen me suffering and came over to tell me that he had plenty of pine to share. Later, my ministering brother came and gave me a bunch of more wood. His was oak also. But for some reason, his was easier to split into smaller pieces. They burned hotter than the thick logs we had prepared. More learning. More opportunities for service. This time, I was on the receiving end. A rare thing. The State of Texas experienced blackouts like never before. This was bigger, longer, and more widespread than Harvey. But what we learned was that we had weaknesses in the grid. A large part was our dependence on renewables. Part of it was an outdated system. Part of it was the dependence on warmer weather (this was a storm like we'd never seen). We learned what we need to improve on. So, why is there no answer to the question? There is. In fact, there are many (many more than I've listed here). But none that the atheist cares to listen to.

Gee, I wonder where these impoverished people got those fancy monogrammed T-shirts. It's almost as if someone organized this.

Likely, what will happen is that other states are looking to see how Texas fares. If the cases/deaths are low, then other states will follow, citing Presidential competence in distributing an effective vaccine. If not, they will use those numbers to mercilessly mock and condemn their political opponents.

https://www.thecentersquare.com/texas/abbott-to-end-texas-shutdown-and-mask-mandate-next-week/article_21761c0a-7ba2-11eb-a14f-b372ccce9ad6.html Governor Abbott declared that, as of Wed next week, Texas will no longer be in shutdown mode. No more mask mandate. EVERY business is allowed to fully open with no restrictions.

There is a HUGE difference between accepting that trials come vs being so eager to have another trial that we go seek it out. I don't invite trials. I try my best to avoid them. But when they do come and are not avoidable, I accept the fact that trials are a part of growth just as failure is a stepping stone to success. But who in his right mind would set out on a task and think, "Hmm. Just how should I fail this week?" The reason why failure is a stepping stone to success is that the "effort" towards success means something. The dedication and commitment to success means something. It pushes you towards success. The failure is just a natural side-effect of trying something that you're not good at, but hope to be good at some day. In the same way trials are a stepping stone towards perfection because learning how to avoid it in the future is an important thing to learn. Trials are a natural side-effect of being in the service of God. Sufficient is the evil of the day unto itself. But here is another perspective for you to take on this question: If you don't believe that you have enough trials in your life, I'd submit that you're not doing enough good with what you've been given. Don't get me wrong. I'm not calling you evil or lazy. It is about "what you do" with "what you have." A couple I was home teacher to told me of the trials they were going through. They were very wealthy with a high level of passive income because of the business model they had developed. They had a wonderful family who tended to love each other. They were very active in the Church. They served in their callings faithfully. They were always cheery and charitable. They were the kind of people you wanted to be like when you grew up. You get the idea. They happened to get a thought into their heads... When are we going to get our trial? They never felt like they had had anything difficult in their lives. They seemed to have had it easy. Then tragedy struck. If you can imagine a bad thing that many people tend to experience, much of it happened to them all at once. When they told me about the experiences they were going through, I listened and nodded. I certainly felt bad for them. So, what does this have to do with doing more good? I can't outline a causal connection in temporal terms. But if I believe that those to whom much is given, shall much be required, then I'm going to believe that simply "being good enough" when you've been blessed tremendously is not enough. If you are tremendously blessed in any way, you need to do something with that "talent" to spread it to others. What are you doing with the talents you have? Are you fulfilling the measure of your creation? Once you realize your talents and what your purpose is, then you'll find plenty of challenges/trials in achieving that "measure of creation." If you do not seek out your mission in life, you may stagnate and not really have any trials. Just a theory which may or may not apply to you.

What browser are you using? Some browsers tend to be incompatible with certain websites, especially if you have certain security measures turned on. Additionally, if your connectivity is spotty, passwords have a tough time working because of time codes.

Of all my studies of the last days, secession was never required because those in power would openly and blatantly abandon (I say disavow) the Constitution. When that happens, the USA will no longer exist. The Elders of Israel will then (figuratively at least) hold up the Constitution as an ensign to the nations for all to come to if they value freedom and justice. What happens in between is not discussed as far as I know. But if we look at the BoM as a type and shadow, we would break up into "tribes". OOfcourse, if one believes in the Boys From the Mountains prophecy, a big war must occur first.

That article mentions an interesting distinction in the first sentence. I wonder how the Nauvoo legion compares.

Yes, of course. I believe it is saying. 1 Nephi 15:13–20

And here I thought he was confusing "bias induced blindness" for "scornful red herrings".

Yes. I have to recall the words of my friend of many years ago who said, "Whelp. They won. So, I have to go with the way the votes went."

I had considered this years ago. Then I thought better of it. But now with it getting more and more in my face, it seems that there is a time to Pull a Capt. Mornoni, and a time to pull a Lachoneus.

There is a difference between getting a good night's sleep and drinking some Mt. Dew. Both make you feel awake and alert which seem to be good things. But one is the healthy way and the other has a cost. More importantly, and germane to the topic, is that the feeling one gets from the healthy way is a more enduring and "happy" feeling than the feeling we get from caffeine.

And just how does one determine who is fully employed or not? I had to do without last year because I had no clients for months. And I could not file for unemployment because I ran my own business. So, I should be penalized for trying to benefit the economy by creating a business? Yes, a small business often does not have the ability to file for unemployment benefits. There's a variety of stuff I can't apply for. I found this out last year. Others also have a problem filing for unemployment. Should they be penalized for being wise enough to build up some savings for such an occasion? The only thing that saved me last year was that I sacrificed enough over the years of plenty to save up. Now all that savings is gone. It took me about 6 months to get back to normal. And I'm finally getting back to building up my savings again. So, just how are you going to determine "who really needs it?" I honestly believe that a rich person who gets a $1000 check will have no motivation to keep it. They're not going to get all excited about it because it isn't all that much money to them. And if a public request was announced, I think you'd be VERY surprised at just how many people will simply pull money out of their own pockets to help others in need. I'd trust individuals to make value judgments about who really needs it because they are on the front lines, in the ditches so to speak. A government agency? They're far to detached to make such value judgments. And considering the welfare abuse I've witnessed first hand, I'd rather choose the mistakes that honest, well-intentioned individuals make than the mistakes a government agency makes.

We believe the same. So that should help you interpret what is there. To interpret properly, first assume that you already believe in all this belief system. Then look at what is written against that background and derive what you can. As it is now, all you see is "what is different from what I believe?". That is fine if you are looking for a true compare contrast. But you're not. You're using this method to put us on trial and make us convince you that you're wrong and we're right. That's not our job. Only the Holy Ghost will teach you what is true.

I am actually for the initial stimulus. But I'm not for these later waves, including the most recent check from the outgoing administration. If the same amount is given to every citizen in the country, then the citizens get to vote with their dollars on what companies they want to support because they offer useful products at a good price. And it lets us decide what a "useful product" is. I would have added a joint legislative and executive request/encouragement for those who don't need it to donate it to someone they think needs it or donate to a worthy cause. I would not draw an arbitrary income level based on a year old financial statement (tax returns). When done in this manner, a stimulus is not a matter of the government choosing winners and losers. The only other question is "how much?". Now that is really the problem. If it is too small, it really won't help anyone. If it is too much, it will do too much damage to the economy. Since it is the nature of politicians to give out candy, the upper limit will always be ignored and economic ruin will follow. -- just as it did in Argentina under Peron. And that is the exact sort of thing we see in the current stimulus bill that will eventually make its way to the President's desk after they invoke the nuclear option.

So, it appears to be fixed. I had to call my BIL for advice on how to remove a sharkbite connector that didn't seal properly. Apparently a properly sized crescent wrench will do the job. I spent about 30 minutes shoving as much rector seal into that joint as possible. So far, so good. I'm concerned that the rector seal is only a temporary solution. So, I will need to get real parts when they become available. The carpet is still drying from the burst pipe. I got the fan and the dehumidifier right next to the wet area. Slowly but surely. Everything seems almost normal. Laundry machines, dishwasher, showers. Oh! blessed showers! Wow that felt so good. I just felt so grimy from head to toe with all the physical labor I had to do this week. Cutting and splitting oak is not an easy feat, especially for a guy my size. Luckily, my ministering brother is quite a bit on the large side. "Brawny" is a perfect adjective. He brought over a truckbed (About a 1/4 chord) of oak and we spent some time taking turns with the axe, and the sledge/wedge combo. I'll tell you what. I'm very happy I invested in that all steel 14 lb maul. We hit the wedge with the handle about as often as we it it with the head. Adjusting for our relative sizes, I think I carried my share of the load. One really cool fun fact: If you spend about 10-20 min. with a 14 lb maul, an axe seems like a toothpick afterwards. After all is said and done my wife really saved our lives this week. She keeps downplaying her role. But I analyzed all the basic necessities and how we managed to have them throughout this week. She was responsible for every single one of them. Half of them were things she got a year or more ago. If it hadn't been for her, I honestly think we would have frozen to death or died of dehydration. I keep thanking her. And she keeps rolling her eyes at me.

@NeuroTypical, why are you confused?

Wow, what a day! I waited until the snow on the roofs were melting. I turned the water on. then someone noticed the toilet was overflowing due to a poor valve. So I turned the toiltet off and we spent about an hour sweeping water out of the house. Then I realized that there was no way that the toilet could have leaked that much in thefew minutes between when I turned on the water and when I turned off the toilet water. Long story short: a pipe had burst inside the exterior wall. I had to turn off the water to the house again. I bashed the drywall open. I found the broken pipe. As per usual incompetence, they placed the pipe outside of the insulation. I spent much of the day cleaning up the mess and traveling from hardware store to hardware store. As you can imagine, there has been a run on plumbing supplies. I spent some time figuring out some cajun engineering with the parts available. My $7 project ended up being about a $50 project because of a run on plumbing supplies. And it's not completely done. I had to get a third set of supplies because there was more damage than I knew about. I can only hope that tomorrow the repairs will actually work. Now I'll probably have to spend about $100 or more on supplies to repair the wall. And the stuff I have in the wall can't be permanent. It's just a mess and will likely only last a few years. So, I'm going to have to redo it in a month or so when supplies have restocked and.prices have gone down. All told this will be about a $400 job or so, including the repairs at the well house.

I keep hearing that. But I don't know where that came from. Here's where I got mine. My comment was primarily directed at the fact that people are mocking Texas for relying too much on fossil fuels. They obviously don't have the facts. So, yeah, Texas has been heavily dependent on solar and wind. I don' think it is possible for hydropower to work in Texas. There simply isn't anywhere with sufficient drop to make it viable. Renewables were a big part of why we the grid failed. And, yes, there were other factors as well. Matural gas lines also gave us problems as did coal. But all these were "spot" failures. Whereas solar and wind were almost completely wiped out. While Texas uses the largest amount of petroleum products in the country, very little of it is used to generate electricity in the state (somewhere around 1% to 2%). Surprisingly, the most practical and unbiased report on the grid failure happens to come from a surprising source. I believe 8% of our electricity comes from Nuclear. It really should be more. It is much more dependable, predictable, and scalable for emergencies above the baseline usage as well as lower than average usage.

So, I hope that the pipe glue will cure some time today. I was hoping that the heat lamp would be more effective than it is being. But alas, no. So at these temps I'm looking at about an hour for set then another 12 hours for cure. So we probably won't have water until morning. Then we can hope to still have power so we can take showers. Imagine a family my size cuddled together in a small room (picture the pioneer homes) for a week without bathing. Yeah, we don't like togetherness as much as we normally would. After all the power ups and downs, we've now had power for about 19 hours. That's longer than any up we've had since this began.

This is more appropriate than you realize. About 20% of Texas power is wind and solar. the snow and freezing temperatures brought that 20% to a complete halt. Add into that an increased demand due to heaters being turned up and we have a grid failure. And "certain people" want to use this event to mock Texas's insistence on fossil fuels. Hah. Fossil fuels were what gave us enough power to get through at all. I'd really like to see an increased usage of nuclear because of this. It is probably the most versatile energy source we have. And many areas of Texas are so seismically dead that there really is no danger of natural disasters. And it would be so cheap if the feds would stop being such fear mongers about it.

This is more appropriate than you realize. About 20% of Texas power is wind and solar. the snow and freezing temperatures brought that 20% to a complete halt. Add into that an increased demand due to heaters being turned up and we have a grid failure. And "certain people" want to use this event to mock Texas's insistence on fossil fuels. Hah. Fossil fuels were what gave us enough power to get through at all.