Carborendum

Wheats and Tares: I know this is stated all the time. But it is true. The only thing we need to be careful of is whether we're the wheat or the tare. Anyone who has been sold on their political beliefs will always try to find justification to believe that their political beliefs are the ones to ensure they're the wheat. But that is exactly backwards. That isn't the method to determine if we're on the right side of any issue. Folks, we're going into a time where EVERY public decision and many seemingly private ones will all seem either unspeakably horrific or absolutely catastrophic. There will seem to be NO GOOD DECISION TO BE MADE. How are we to find the Lord's will in all that? Follow the Prophet.

From this study. Excerpts quoted for convenience. Follow the link for further context and information. The stats shown indicate the statistical data and results for each set of tests. The "low certainty" means that the evidence suggests that the purported benefit was not indicated by the resulting data. "Moderate certainty" means that while some evidence does appear, it is not at a very conclusive level. It may not hurt. But we probably don't want to be depending on this methodology for the desired outcome. BUT... hand hygiene does apparently help. DISCLAIMER: SYNOPSIS OF CONCLUSIONS: I'll add one comment. I don't think they addressed the benefit of surgeons wearing masks in the operating room. ( @mikbone, correct me if I'm wrong.) The fact is that surgical masks do almost nothing to prevent germs from going in and out with our breath. It isn't meant to. Those germs are still in the air regardless of the mask you wear. They are not "filtered" by these masks. The air just goes out the side instead of straight forward. Since it only takes 1 virus, it can float around and drift quite a distance and for quite a duration. While some of the humid exhalation is captured by the mask, the great majority just goes out the sides into the air. The reason surgeons wear masks is to prevent spittle and nasal discharge (solids & liquids, not suspended particles) from going into the patient's body (which is directly in front of them for several hours). Because of this function, mask wearing does have that benefit. And for this level of disease communication, it is effective. But in everyday practice, that is a very small percentage of contamination of a communicable disease. And, you can look it up, there was virtually no difference in the percentage of cases for areas with mask mandates vs no mandates. People caught COVID at about the same rates regardless.

Possibilities: It was what you needed to hear at the time to allow for a bit of a gap between your 3rd and 4th because of other plans that the Lord had. (Morpheus: You need to know the difference between knowing the path, and walking it). "Impressions" are often not very specific instructions. But they lead you in a direction. You went that direction. And the Lord blessed you with another child, a little later in your life. So, good on you. OR It was a "commandment" rather than a prophecy. And you failed because you didn't "prevent it per se." OR It was not a message from the Lord. It was all between you and your wife. And a beautiful life happened. Apart from physical/health limitations I cannot fathom why the Lord would tell anyone to not have any more children in a loving, faithful household. Have as many as you & your wife want, and what you think you can handle.

The first rule of thesaurus club is: You do not talk, speak, communicate, orate, or converse about the thesaurus club. I used to be poor until I discovered a thesaurus. Now I'm penurious.

I bought an audio version of the dictionary. It's high definition. Only one word is spelled "incorrectly" in the dictionary. My neighbor the librarian attacked me with a dictionary. The judge didn't know whether to charge him with verbal or physical assault. I once had a military dictionary with a camouflage cover. I can't find the words. My family never bought me a dictionary for my birthday. I have no words to express my disappointment. The most offensive page in the dictionary is disgraceful, disgusting, dishonest, and disingenuous. I decided to read the dictionary. By the time I got to "case," I was past caring.

I wonder if they're going to simply drag it out like Gibson Bakery v Oberlin College. If they do get the payout, I'd think that the smart ones would take the money and run away to another state that actually cares about their well-being.

Two things: Maybe that is because the core subject is exactly the problem. If the current laws required that health coverage pay for assisted suicide, we'd probably say the same thing. I absolutely do not believe in murder. I'm even on the fence with capital punishment. But I will kill in self-defense and in the defense of another. Maybe it is because the whole reason we have the problem is because government pushing this on people in the first place. One of the primary mechanisms of our governmental system is to use government to fight government. That is what this proposed legislation is doing. What would really be helpful is if "your side" actually allowed for free and open debate about the topic instead of ad hominems & efforts to cancel people for daring to disagree.

I'd really like to see a million dollars pop out of a fish's mouth. That would solve a lot of problems for me.

I'm not really sure what to make of this. But I'm getting the impression that I've offended you in some way. I really didn't mean to. And if you took my comments as badgering, I apologize.

Sorry to hear about your health issues. But you may want to have the interview anyway. I remember hearing an address about this very situation. And the counsel we received was that it was still a good thing to have the recommend even if you can't go due to health reasons. You might want to consider it.

Could be. Like I said. He didn't offer explanations.

This is genius. https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/952/BillText/Filed/PDF

Let's remove all the double negatives from this converstation. What I got out of it was that he said those three things he said were what are commonly said and he was hereby calling them myths. Is that what you meant? If he was correct in saying all three of those statements as he said were myths, then my reaction was that I pretty much agreed that the first two were myths. But the third is a myth? That would mean that the LGBTQ+ movement is not very big and it is failing. Huh???

Oh, my! Where on earth would I get that impression?

OMT: I'm actually going to PRAISE NPR. He mentioned both FOX and CNN to stay away from. I believe he intended those two to represent virtually all the popular sites on both conservative and liberal side of the media. But he also mentioned NPR as a site to stay away from. One thing I've noticed by reading NPR articles is that when they get into politics, it is entirely one-sided. It is 99.9% propaganda. BUT... I also notice that their legal analyses are top-notch. They argue the liberal side, to be sure. But the way they lay out The wording of the law... The reasons why such a statute does or does not apply to a given situation. The arguments being made on both sides. Why one side's argument is weaker (usually the conservative side) Why the other side is stronger (usually the liberal side) Analyses of the rulings from lower courts and the questions and comments from the SCOTUS justices. And the nature and effects of the the final ruling. Those guys REALLY know what they're talking about. I don't recall ever reading any logical fallacies (I could have missed some article). Their interpretation of the words of both statues and rulings didn't seem to have any flaws. AND most of their predictions are correct. I remember when they were talking about a particular case where the conservative Justices were asking questions that seemed reasonable, but were rather weak. Then the liberal lawyers gave very strong answers. They predicted which conservative justices would side with the liberals so that SCOTUS would rule in favor of the plaintiff . And they were right. They consult some very good legal scholars at that news source. But their opinion and commentaries? Blehhh.

Balloons cost a couple hundred dollars? Maybe $1000? (I'm guessing). And I understood them to be really high altitude balloons. How much does a SAM cost? For higher altitude ones, they could be over $250k. Launching a fighter into the sky? Ironically, I believe this to be less of an issue. Fighters need to be used for practice all the time. So, if they're launched for an actual seek and destroy mission, then all the better. Just my personal musing. But there is a limit to when this overwhelms our air fleet. Air-to-Air Missiles themselves cost in the neighborhood of $100k to $200k. China could severely hit our finances by launching a million balloons each year across all the US and outlying territories. It's a way of waging war without waging war.

Oh, my. How rare in this day and age.

It is a little better than you make it out to be (at least, in my view). If all men were angels, we'd have no need of government. If kings were saints, we'd have no need of democracy. Of course, the Nephite form of government was a republic rather than a direct democracy for the very same reason the founding fathers also chose a representative republic.

As a tangent... I looked further into the video. Interesting Q&A. That one threw me for a loop. He gave no explanation. I absolutely believe we still do assassinations. I was pretty sure that CIA operatives all HAD to speak multiple languages. But the LGBTQ+ community is NOT very active? Hmmm... Time stamp about 15:10 I had to paraphrase. It was a long question and answer. He also noted that the agents themselves really are only following orders. Electing proper policy makers is essential for those agents to do their jobs in the interests of the US Citizens. Elect bad policy makers, and the intelligence community can harm the US. See his wording at the time stamp. But this ^^ is what I got out of it.

About 14 years ago, I said something similar in a different forum. Someone on a mostly conservative forum was absolutely shocked that some parents were so irresponsible with the raising of their children that they spewed out the idea I responded: Oh, yeah, I can just see it now. Wait, you're both virgins and you want to get married? No, I'm afraid you're going to have to be more experienced before we can license such a union. Nope, you can't have children yet, you haven't even been married 7 years yet. We know that it takes that long before the two of you will be fit parents. I'm afraid you're going to have to abort the baby or we'll have to take it and put it in foster care. You both observe the same religion? No, we can't let you raise this child in such an intolerant home. Either abort or foster it. You don't think that two year olds can be trans? Oh, I'm afraid that such ignorance indicates you're not fit to be a parent. When there is NO HOPE of raising a child up unto the Lord, the shortening of days shall commence.

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.