Carborendum

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.

My FIL used soldier fly larvae. He stopped for some reason. I'll have to ask him why. I never asked. Frankly I didn't care. Here's why. Garbage ---> Soldier Fly Larve ---> Chickens. Each stage decreases the overall energy. Garbage ---> Chickens. Remove one step of the process, overall energy is increased ten fold. So, I can't think of a free source of food that I have in such abundance that I can freely feed soldier fly larvae forever that chickens won't eat.

What do you use for chicken feed?

What the other two have already said is true. I will state what the dynamic is in our stake and it may give you a better feel for what is really going on. Pres. Nelson gives guidelines for stakes to administer the sacrament to people at home. The Stake Pres. then decides how that guidance will fit best with the stake's attributes: geography, personnel, activity rate, relative numbers of active priesthood holders, etc. The bishop then provides the house-to-house plan by making individual assignments of which families will have them administered to, and which families will self-administer. The Elders' Quorum then calls various brethren and decides which active priesthood holders will administer to the houses without sufficient priesthood in the home. It goes from general to more and more detailed.

I don't know about you. But I'm just not seeing it.

How many chickens do you have?

From the comments on the article.

Well, you're welcome to come by if they allow interstate travelling. But as I said, they don't seem to show signs of the female flowers yet. I don't know of any plant that does that. So, I'm getting worried. I forgot to take pictures of our chickens. We had covenants that prohibited chickens. But Texas was passing a law that allowed at least 6 chickens provided you had a minimum lot size. Our entire subdivision qualifies. So, we took the proposed legislation to the POA (slightly different/weaker powers than an HOA) meeting. They noted that 6 isn't all that bad. So, they allowed it. Unfortunately, the stores only sell chicks in groups of four. So, we had to get 8. Shhhhh. don't tell. I have a feeling we will have 7 soon. I'm thinking our biggest chicken is getting kind of old. She may end up going in the oven soon. We only get three eggs a day now. The four younger ones are not laying yet.

And here are the two most beautiful flowers of all the garden. My wife and eldest daughter. And... there's also my dog.

Since I'd been talking about my garden on another thread, I thought I'd share some of my garden with y'all. Here is my watermelon patch. These are my two watermelon plants. If they produce well, then I'm going to expand it to four or five next year. For scale, those are 4x8x16 concrete blocks between the two plants. These are the flowers that have developed. They are all male flowers. They're supposed to precede the female flowers by about a week. It has been two weeks since the first male flower and still no female flowers. I'm beginning to get worried. Here is one of my blueberry bushes. This is the third growing season. Producing lots of berries for such a sparse plant. i need to work on getting the branches to be fuller. Here is a shot of the corn bed, the 2nd blueberry bush, and the gourd plant. The corn bed is 4x8. The gourd bed is 4x4. And here is the cucumber bed (4x8). We just put up the trellis with cattle panel and T-Posts. On the back end of the bed is a zucchini plant. You can see the difference in leaves if you look real close.

I saw that and appreciated it. I was not trying to beat you down. I merely tried to give it a scholarly critique. And I thought I mentioned that it could be considered true from a certain point of view. (Thank you Obi-wan). In your favor, we know that the flood was a representation of the "baptism" of the earth. And we know that baptism denotes a covenant. And we know a covenant was made about the earth right after the earth "came up again out of the water." So, that much we can clearly see. We also know that the covenant at baptism also calls upon the Atonement of Christ. So, that much makes sense. The "God undoing all of His creative work" is likened unto us as we are born again (of the water and of the Spirit). And we know that the earth has yet to be born again of the Spirit. Never thought you were implying it. TBH, I still don't know how much of it is literal or figurative. Or Korean Engineers in Texas...

This passage is likening one covenant to another covenant. But I don't see any mention of the promise of a Redeemer. The first covenant (with Noah) is likened to the covenant the Lord is making with Zion, that her stakes shall be expanded (v.2). This is a dual image of Ancient Israel and the Latter-days. This covenant essentially says that even if He chastens us, we will not be left desolate forever. We will still be His covenant people forever. As a dual image, this is true of the Ancient Covenant People as well as the Latter-day Covenant People (or Latter-day Saints). To each covenant people, he gave power that mountains would depart, hills would be removed, and desolate places shall be inhabited, so that we can spread the gospel abroad. Even though He may chasten us to bring us back under His wings, we will not be left desolate forever. The covenant will remain with both the ancient and latter-day saints. The reason Noah is mentioned is that Israel was actually concerned about the coming "flood" of Babylonian rule (so say some sectarian Biblical scholars). So, people being chastened by a flood will also be given a covenant of protection and a promise of expanding her stakes. And like the Deluge, most of Israel was consumed by the flood of Babylon. But some were taken by a boat to the promised land, safe from the flood of Babylon (worldliness). If the mention of the word "peace" is to invoke the Prince of Peace, then why does it say: Now, if you really want to get technical about it, there is always a parallel about how the Lord deals with nations and groups of people as he does with individuals as a type and shadow of the story of man as well as mankind. But such an overarching parallel is evident in almost any passage of scripture. It isn't any different here. But you seemed to indicate there was something more solid and unique than that in this passage.

Mrs. Carb loves to garden. And she really WANTS to milk a cow. But she's really afraid of them. So...

??? I would edit Henry clay a bit: