Carborendum

I don't recall anyone bringing this up. But since it happened almost in my backyard, I'll mention it. https://apnews.com/938e786d6e2f5a27d8c63370c0fa3e2c https://www.reuters.com/article/us-texas-shooting/suspect-killed-in-texas-navy-base-shooting-identified-as-syrian-born-u-s-citizen-idUSKBN22Y2O6 https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2020/05/21/corpus-christi-naval-air-station-shooting-vpx.kris Last week there was an attempted mass shooting at the NAS in Corpus Christi. The gate guard saved the day.

I actually agree with the idea that we'll win against COVID. I wouldn't exactly say that I "disagree", but I'd say that I don't have as much confidence than you seem to that the patterns I'm seeing may wax and wane based on the success or failure against the disease alone. Again, I'm not making a prediction. Who knows what changes may happen tomorrow or next month or next year? I'm just thinking in linear terms. And we all know that the patterns of history are not linear, but circular.

How does this make any sense?

Yes, I'm aware. But I think you may be putting too much hope in the fall of the Roman Empire. It led to THE DARK AGES. Did the world recover? Sure. After many centuries. Some may say after 1000 years. Were there governments? Yes, but not nearly as effective. A lot more wars (which I categorize differntly than imperial campaigns) poverty, famines, etc. And every society that came of "the ten toes" were more crime ridden than Rome ever was -- at least for a very prolonged period. It was that even though there was "government and laws" the respect for the rule of law was absent. The idea of "peaceful society" was not part of the societal fabric. Contracts being dependable was not a common thing. Instead of honorable free market exchanges, it was caveat emptor. All the "skin of its teeth" similarity to what we see today -- or have seen in earlier decades -- but the societal attitudes of "it's not a crime when WE do it" run rampant. It is the slow return to those dark ages type attitudes that I fear. There is a reason that Jesus tended to criticize hypocrisy more than most other sins. I see the good. But I also see the bad. And as bad as things seem in the US today, the rest of the world is worse. And the dark ages were even worse still. So, the fact that the dark ages had governments and leaders isn't really all that comforting. Remember that, to us, we didn't truly recover until the Restoration. I'm hoping I don't have to spell out what parallel that leads to in today's scenario. The primary thing that is coming to mind is the nature of "civil disobedience" that I'm seeing here (mostly because of the political climate and the lockdown). I've always considered the guideline for "intolerable" tyranny is when the people decide that they would be willing to pledge their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor on the right to rebel. This doesn't matter whether it is over a hairstyle, a prison sentence, or anything in between. It is "whatever" is worth putting those three things on the line for to a sufficient number of individuals. I've seen protesters my entire life. And most of them, honestly, don't seem to be sacrificing much. But when I see otherwise, law-abiding, peaceful, productive, honorable people beginning to fall on their swords to rebel against what they consider to be tyranny, I perk my ears up and I begin paying attention. And if, at that point, I start seeing enough peaceful people behaving in an unpeaceful manner, I begin to start my watch. How far does it go? Is there a sign of it stopping? I'm not saying it is the end of the country or the world yet. Don't misinterpret me. The signs of the end of the world happen all the time. But when enough signs start appearing a LOT, then we need to start asking the question and watching. Just because a boy cried wolf doesn't mean there are no such things as wolves. I'm saying, it always pays to be vigilant.

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-disappearing-so-fast-oxford-vaccine-has-only-50-chance-of-working-11993739 This is good news. Sorta.

We need to look at more than one definition of a word when interpreting the meaning. Understanding these definitions may help answer the question. The bolded phrases refer to one type of "anxious". The underlined phrases refer to a different type of "anxious." I believe the bolded is used in the phrase "anxiously engaged in a good cause." This is clearly something related to faith. I believe the underlined is what Jacob was saying. I don't know if I'd call it "complementary." I'd say it is more disease vs cure. Anxiety (fear) may be a disease (or ailment) of the soul. Faith is the cure. I believe the article even says as much. It says: Don't be anxious. (Don't worry about a thing). Pray instead with thanksgiving. So, certainly there is a relationship of some sort. But "complementary"? I'm not seeing it.

I never said the word "convert." And I never meant it. So, I'm not sure if you understood my meaning. Trust me, there's no danger of that happening. The only people who look up to me are my kids. And they should.

Of course. THAT Michael Palin. Given the nature of the topic, my mind wasn't calling up Monty Python.

That puts things into a different light. I like it.

I have certainly come across this response multiple times. And I don't blame them. I don't know if I'd believe others if they related the things I've experienced. But I had listened to a stranger relate a miracle to me. And she, too was wondering why people tend not to believe in them anymore. As she shared hers, I shared mine of a similar nature. And I believe we were both edified in the exchange. Other times I related only general ideas rather than specifics. And people were left "wondering" rather than "disbelieving." I suppose that was a better response. This is one reason I'm never going to be entrusted with the secrets of eternity. I seem to not have a filter on my mouth. I can't keep secrets. If I feel something is truly exciting, I really want to share it with everyone.

You're not the only one who has stated this. Yes and no. Yes, it does. And this is a question that atheists will never be able to properly answer. So, they just shrug it off on probability. The problem is that the laws of probability say that it shouldn't have happened. The ratio of the existing probabilities 5 billion years ago vs. the likelihood of the right combinations of amino acids forming proteins without any pre-existing proteins is more than astronomical. So, what they're left with is infinite universe theory (which scientifically speaking is not a theory). And that is more faith than science. Yet atheist scientists buy into it as if it is a reality. Exactly. People tend to reverse the cause-effect relationship, creating a conundrum where there wasn't one. According to William Dembski. It is mathematically highly improbable (to the point it is pretty much impossible) even considering the immensity of the universe. Turtles all the way down. Got it. Once probability says that randomness does not explain a phenomenon, then we are only left with one alternative -- non-randomness, IOW, intelligent design. No idea who these guys are. But my family LOVES The Secret Garden.

In the sense I perceive your question to be: None.

As always, the lesser of two evils.

Here is an interesting development that I've been thinking a lot about. Trump is declaring houses of worship as providing "essential services." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFG6Gr0Fow0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPZceV5RR5Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sRweFK5LzQ It's funny how CNN decides to point out that this is "unenforceable" rather than "faith friendly." Why? Because they want to drive a wedge between the faith community and Trump. The more I'm thinking about this, the more I see Trump as Darius (of Daniel and the Lion's den). Not Nebuchadnezzar. Not Morianton. Not Charlemagne. Darius never did "convert" to the Law of Moses. History says he eventually became Zoroastorian. But there was no question that he was an ally of Daniel and all the Jews. We can point to the fact that he declared that all people worship him (Darius) for a day. And we can point to throwing Daniel in the Lion's den. We could probably point to many things that he did in his life that were certainly against the laws of God. But at the end of the day, he was a man with the power. And he used that power to protect the covenant people. SIDE NOTE about Persia: It is sad that the story of the 300 Spartans depicts the Persians as the evil empire. The truth is that Persians had many very forward thinking practices. They were the first major world power to outlaw slavery. They allowed women the right to own and control property. They could represent themselves and their husbands at court. A Persian Queen (Pourandokt) may have been one of the first female monarchs in history. The point is: It is very difficult to see from the outside and determine who a man (or woman) is on the inside. What we can do is judge their actions. The problem with Trump is that his actions in his private life (adultery, bully behavior, and adolescent speech) show one side, where his public actions (policies, proposed legislation, judicial appointees, defunding Planned Parenthood, general rhetoric supportive of Christians...) tell a very different side. He's also taken a very federalist position on many policies. He's been very respectful of states rights. He's done what he can to get us out of wars and conflicts. He even reversed his decision to attack Iran because he realized it there was insufficient cause to put G.I.s in danger. He is an interesting character to say the least. Looking at that profile, you know what political category I'd put him in? Libertarian.

You're assuming that "the mark" is something that will only be used once in all of human history. That would be a mistake. NOTE: I'm not saying that what you described is the mark. I'm talking about dismissing claims simply because this isn't "THE mark." The devil doesn't have any new tools in his toolbox. They're simply dressed up differently with different societies, populations, social structures, and technology. The mark is nothing new. It will simply be repackaged The idea behind the mark is that we must buy into an ideology that is counter to and in direct conflict with the gospel of Jesus Christ (IOW, the great and abominable church). Do you honestly think the devil has never done that before? Of course he has. I believe the biggest mistake that people make regarding the Revelation of John is that they believe it has ONLY to do with Armageddon and the 2nd coming. That would be incomplete, if not completely wrong. So, what else is it talking about? I'll get to that below. The fist edition of Mormon Doctrine claimed that "The Great and Abominable Church" (TGAAC) was the Catholic Church. McConkie was roundly criticized for it. He correct it to say Nephi tells us that this has been around a LONG time. The TGAAC is the culture (motivated by political, religious, philosophical... factors) which causes people to make a decision between God and commerce. And by choosing commerce over God, we receive the mark of the beast. So, TGAAC and the Mark go hand-in-hand with each other. One is the ideology. The other is our acceptance of it. The Book of Revelation is not just about the earth's history. It is a warning to us as individuals to not give into the ideology AT ANY POINT IN OUR LIVES -- REGARDLESS OF HOW CLOSE OR FAR WE ARE FROM THE SECOND COMING even if it means our loss of commerce. We must always watch out. This is not crying wolf. It is vigilance. The devil learned a long time ago that people were willing to DIE for the Lord. But how many people are willing to LIVE for Him? How many of us actually stand as a witness of God in all times and in all places? The young man did indeed obey many commandments. But when there was a question of maintaining his livelihood vs obeying the commandments, he chose the former. Here is the problem with your claim (however sarcastic it may have been): The mark of the beast is exposed where one is compelled to change their ideology in exchange for worldly wealth. I don't see the exchange for worldly wealth because of a mask. I see people losing wealth regardless of their ideology. So, while I agree with the conclusion that it is not the mark of the beast, the implied reasoning is different.

I finally saw a couple of female flowers. I saw two on the same plant. I hope I only missed some on the other plant. For now I would like a minimum of one full sized watermelon so we can get a real idea of the flavor and preserve some seeds. I can hope for 8 to 10 from each plant. But I doubt I'll get it.

I hope you don't think I'm being a grammar nazi here. But I'm honestly curious. Do you understand the difference between sardonic and sarcastic?

https://www.cnn.com/videos/health/2020/05/22/fauci-vaccine-trial-neutralizing-antibodies-coronavirus-town-hall-sot-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/coronavirus/ Fauci is "cautiously optimistic" for a very good reason regarding the latest vaccine trials.

"That's what the government WANTS you to think." So, what if we turned it around? "But the earth is flat." --That's what the government WANTS you to think. "I saw a UFO around Roswell." --That's what the government WANTS you to think. "The moon landing was faked." --That's what the government WANTS you to think. "5G gave us the coronavirus." --That's what the government WANTS you to think. "Obama was the greatest president EVER!!!" --That's what the government WANTS you to think. One of these things is not like the others.

And this drives many people to leave liberal states and come to conservative states and turn them blue so that we have no more conservative states. Why don't liberals wise up and realize that the reason they had to leave their old state was because of LIBERAL policies destroying them?

Why is the freeze frame image non-existent in the video?

I'm afraid you can't. There's no such thing anymore. Oh, that. Well, there are two answers to that. 1) If you're asking about the mechanical procedure of how to: become a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. One takes lessons from the missionaries for a time. Be interviewed by people who are authorized by God as his representatives to see if you are ready to make such a commitment. Be baptized and confirmed. Once you're baptized, confirmed, and paperwork is all done. You're officially a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And we have you now! Bwuh-ha-ha-ha!!! (Proven to be stress relieving maniacal laughter). Just kidding. We're not evil (At least, that's what the government WANTS you to think.) 2) To be redeemed of God, and be numbers among His sheep at the last day, one must do the following: Receive a testimony that Jesus is the Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the world. Repent of your sins. Mourn with those that mourn Comfort those that stand in need of comfort Stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death Do these things as part of a covenant with the Lord under the authority of God given to his representatives on the earth. (See #1 above. But do it for real, not just going through the motions.) Receive the Holy Ghost. Obey His commandments Endure to the end. (Keep repenting throughout our lives).

Yeah. That's what my wife told me.

So far we haven't found anything we have a lot of that the chickens won't eat. Lately, I've had a lot of fun weeding the garden. If I'm weeding just to save my plants, it's tedious work. If I'm weeding to send the weeds to the chickens it's an act of vengance!!! Oh yeah, baby!!!

Wow. I must have been the most foolish person you've ever met. I knew I wanted to marry when I first met her. I called on her for about a month before she agreed to date me. We went on exactly two dates and we talked about marriage. We were formally engaged about two months later. We married about 7 months from the time we first met. After 24 years and 7 children later, we've never gotten past the infatuation stage of the relationship. I hope we never do.