Carborendum

I don't really know much about this particular case except what you've linked to. So, I can't make an informed judgment here. But speaking generally... Why can't they be both? Just because it's right, doesn't mean it's legal. And adamantly violating the law isn't really a sign of a "good citizen." Sometimes defending liberty means violating the law. In fact, sometimes it may mean overthrowing the government.

Short answer: Personal interpretation of the gospel and pet theories rather than the basics of faith, humility, obedience, and sacrifice. Long answer: From Mosiah 12... This is a very important beginning of the conversation. Abinadi specifically states that they have not taught them the ways of the Lord. They have perverted them. Then asks them what they ARE teaching the people. So, as far as they are concerned, they're doing what they're supposed to do. They teach the Law of Moses, after all. That is the Law of God. Therefore, we're teaching right. But what is Abinadi's response to their claim? It is easy to think that Noah and his priests were simply hypocrites. I don't think so. At some level, sure they were. But the primary thing that Abinadi is giving them a tongue lashing for was the fact that they were not doing their jobs and preaching the word of God. He starts his actual lesson with the Ten Commandments. Pretty basic stuff. Not the doctrine of the atonement or grace, or works, or love thy neighbor, or the value of work... He teaches the commandments of God. And when he does, both Noah and Alma are pricked in their hearts. I'd say because neither of them had even thought about (or taught about) the commandments in a long time. And they were being reminded of them for the first time since their apostasy. We can all have our pet principles (which are true and just principles). But we twist them in such a way that we justify our sinning against the commandments of God. We believe in the "warm and fuzzy things" like "love thy neighbor" and excuse ourselves from ignoring the commandment to stay chaste or to warn our neighbor or to cry repentance to all the world. And to do so, means we're simply creating our own offshoot of the Church rather than staying true to the roots. That was Noah's great sin.

One of my oldest friends is just waiting for Corona to kill both Trump and Pence. And he will feel justified in believing that guy with the "Ezdras's Eagle" theory from the Apocrypha.

I certainly am an apostate. Just ask any evangelical Christian.

I'll get a second whip.

You're getting grey? I thought my black hair was due to being Asian. But I guess it's just me.

I was thoroughly unimpressed by this announcement. Yeah, we kinda knew that.

Sounds familiar. Where does it say they knew all this in the first place? Having hope of a glorious resurrection doesn't mean they understood the doctrine. It is pretty clear that the Jews of the time of Christ (even though they were taught by Christ Himself) did not understand there was such a thing as resurrection. The phrase "hope of a glorious resurrection" doesn't necessarily refer to them holding hope in their hearts and minds (although it may). It could simply mean that their glory was assured whether they knew it or not. You've heard the phrase,"He doesn't have any hope of winning." It's the opinion by the one making the statement. You could ask similar questions of why God's glory alone can cause people to die, yet it didn't happen when Christ was in a mortal coil. Does lack of pain mean we're in heaven? Does "not being homeless" mean that we MUST be billionaires? This goes hand-in-hand with the three degrees of glory. The peace (v 22) is contrasted with the darkness (v 22). One can be at peace without fully being happy. They had been given a promise of a fullness of joy. And while they had peace and hope (not in darkness) they had not yet received their fullness of joy that they were promised. And they longed for it. Compare to the parable of the unwise steward. This would mean that no one can teach the wicked in spirit prison until they've been resurrected. That would mean that those of our dispensation (who have NOT been resurrected yet) cannot go into spirit prison to teach. I don't believe that is correct. But I'm having difficulty remember just where I heard that.

Here's mine.

I'm so glad that we can find such surety about a topic that Christians can admit we have no revelation on and that scientist admit that we haven't really figured it out yet.

About what?

From CDC FastStats: With graphs like these it will be very hard to justify looking at past data to justify an accurate estimate of COVID deaths based on total death numbers alone. It looks like since 2007, we've been seeing a rise in total death rates regardless. And the annual changes are so haphazard, it would be difficult to attribute accurate numbers any changes to a single source when we are well aware of several causes of death that are rising during this same period.

See, this is a perfectly reasonable position. I would echo that. But what you wrote before was a completely different idea.

If you look at my detailed argument, you'd realize that I was not making that argument.

Now, this is not a fair comparison. The rule of thumb is FIRST, do no harm. We can look at how that can be applied from a medical perspective. But it's a bit different when applying it from a government perspective. The idea is to first look at the situation from the perspective of "natural sequence of events." What would happen if no one thought about it and things just went along as if no one knew they could change anything? Then what would happen if we did something? With abortion, the vast majority of the time, everyone would be healthy. So, we say, don't do anything. Let nature take its course. If we do something, 100% of the time, a baby dies, and the mother often has complications. The results speak for themselves. With COVID, the vast majority of the time, people will not die because of a maskless population. With masks, no real indications that it will actually help the situation in a significant manner. Then you balance the infringement of individual liberty vs the calculated benefit. You haven't made much of a case to be pro-mask or pro-abortion. Instead, you're actually begging the question. You're assuming that by having a maskless population, your 88 y.o. grandmother has a high chance of death. And by masking everyone the chances will somehow be reduced a statistically significant amount. Neither of these is even close to proven. But your whole argument starts with these assumptions. Weren't you the one who was touting how this was "nothing"? "You're more likely to die of the flu that COVID." Was that you? Weren't you mocking people who were panicking over Corona? So, what are you doing?

While I can't speak for everyone, I have a problem wearing masks at all because of breathing issues. I simply cannot wear a mask for extended periods of time. Maybe an hour or so. But my office is asking everyone to wear it all day. I simply can't do that. I wear it for a while until I can't breathe. Then I take it off long enough to catch my breath and regain relaxed breathing. I've recognized that the mask will take the moisture from my breathing and expand various fibers constricting the openings within the fabric, and by extension, the flow of air. As I catch my breath, the mask will also dry out. So, the periodic removal helps both my lungs and the mask.

Religion: Science Electron Shells : s&p Orbitals

In that case, my attitude toward him would be "beggars can't be choosers." But he is so uneducated that the relevance of that saying to his particular circumstance would be lost on hm.

Yup. https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/ps/homeschool.asp It used to be somewhat easier when I was in California. But things changed after I left and have not kept track.

There is something I'd like some clarity or background on. It is the counsel to not tell people about miracles or powerful spiritual experiences. I kind of understand the idea that we are to treat such topics with the reverence they deserve. But why should we NEVER talk about them? If something happened that was highly testimony building, we are only supposed to say something general like,"And the Lord let me know that the Church is true." Don't give the specifics of how He old me. If we witnessed a miracle -- truly miraculous -- we're not supposed to repeat it? I guess if everyone told of all their spiritual experiences, then it would somehow cheapen the experiences. But in a way, wouldn't it have a tendency to increase societal faith that miracles still happen? I can only guess that there was a period where so many people had miracles that it became a pressure for others who did not experience them to make stuff up. And it also made it all too easy for charlatans to trick people into believing incorrect doctrines. There is also the fact that our miracles and special experiences are our own and won't necessarily have the same message for others. I can make a dozen arguments why we should keep things like this to ourselves. But I also see the other side of the argument that would also make it desirable share our experiences -- "to witness to others" as evangelicals would say. But it seems sad to me that we live in a world where we cannot / should not share these things. Truly, Hamlet was correct. There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in our philosophies. And people just won't get to share them.

I think everyone brags to a certain degree about things that they think are important. From a certain perspectve, one could even argue that bearing testimony is a type of bragging. It's just that they value money instead of their relationship with the Lord.

Have you considered that what you're expecting to feel and what you're asking about are two different things? A thought occurred to me that you feel all these intellectually good things. He's kind, dependable, understanding, patient, intelligent, hard working (I'm only guessing). But you don't really feel all excited about him? While I don't discount exciting -- I was completely dumbfounded when I met my wife -- I have to say that the fun and exciting and WOW effect are icing on the cake. The important part (the real substance) is this underlying stuff. If you're looking WOW, you will certainly know that when you find it. But what is it you really want? When you say that you want a person who's right for you, what are you expecting? That you'll have a happy life together? What do you think happiness is? My daughter met a guy who was very excited about her. He was a good kid. My son was one of his best friends. They went out a couple of times. And he was interested in pursuing a relationship with her. But she wasn't all that excited about him. He was actually a good candidate on paper. He would have provided well for her (he was going to be an engineer). He was certainly nice and would have treated her right. But one thing that both my son and daughter noted was that he was fairly indecisive. He was always a bit "too nice" or "too passive." This is certainly not something that a woman commonly looks for in a man. Uderstanding, yes. A good listener, yes. Compassionate, yes. But passive? Confidence is very attractive. And his passivity certainly didn't WOW her. So, is that important? I think it is. But you need to understand there are other things more important to marriage.

Hey, it just occurred to me that if you ever adopt a baby, you have to name him Isaac or her Isabelle. That way you'd be the TMI family.

If he makes that much money, one would think that a private school would be a better option.

You're really zinging them lately.