Carborendum

As I heard it, Abraham Lincoln used this method quite often. It would get things off his chest, and allow for the ideas to be expressed in a more logical manner. And in the end, he often felt like after he had done so, his reasons for being upset didn't seem so important anymore. I wonder if that is why social media tends to bring out the worst in people. Because it is to "nameless masses" we tend to think of people online as "not real people". And with the therapeutic tendencies of getting things off our chest, it feels good to do so. But when even writing it down on a computer becomes suspect, to whom do we vent? The difference is only which button we press at the end (delete or send).

This must be a British thing. Kinda like my kim chee and chocolate combo.

This is a myth. In the Ute language, it means "the people." But in certain contexts, it can simply mean "people" or "person" or "human." I'd like to see that quote.

So, you ARE trying to insult me. Thank you admitting it.

Back by popular demand: ANARCHISM You have two cows. You keep the cows and steal another one. You ignore the government. CAPITALISM You have two cows. You sell one of them, and buy a bull. The cow and bull have a great love life; you sell the movie rights to Hollywood. Then you go into real estate. COMMUNISM You have two cows. The government takes both cows. The government sells the milk in government stores. You can’t afford the milk. You wither away. DEMOCRACY You have two cows. Your neighbors outvote you 2-1 to ban all meat and dairy products. You go bankrupt. FASCISM You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk. LIBERALISM You have two cows. You give away one cow and get the government to give you a new cow. Then you give them both away to a vegan family because they seem malnourished. NEW DEALISM You have two cows. The government takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and pours the milk down the sink. The government insists there is a giant storage tank where all the milk goes. SOCIALISM You have two cows. The government takes one of them and gives it to your neighbor. He sells you some milk.

It sounds like you live in Utah.

Now that I've addressed the definition and its ability to interface with the Law of Consecration, let me tell you about the philosophy behind it. Communism: No owns anything. Socialism: The government owns everything. Capitalism: Individuals own everything. Law of Consecration: The Lord owns everything. But he gives us stewardship to use for our own upkeep as well as furthering His work on earth. And He will judge us for how we execute that stewardship. Communism: Any time you make/create something, anyone is allowed to make use of it at any time. I own it just as much as you. So, why can't I take the car that you just built over the past year? It's mine just as much as yours. This is normally thought of as theft. Socialism: If I spend a year making a car, it belongs to the government. They can confiscate it at will. This is normally thought of as slavery. Capitalism: I can obtain through free negotiations with another party the right to own materials and tools to build a car. I can then use the car, or sell it, or give it away. I can also consecrate it to the Lord and let him guide me as to how I should use it best to further His work on earth.

Tell me more.

I'll answer that question. But I need to point out that the definition of how it is supposed to work is very different than the philosophy behind it and the actual results it generates. Understand that the "wide range" you speak of is not the overall system. It is the level of implementation of said system. Most developed nations today have some hybrid between capitalism and socialism. I'm going to slightly summarize your definition to align with what the dictionary says (for proper comparison). "And economic system where some or all of the property and natural resources are publicly owned." (By "publicly" we understand it to mean the government.) Definition of Socialism per Encyclopedia Britannica: Let's extrapolate definitions of the other economic system which we tend to discuss: I'm going to assume that you and I agree that if we all lived the Law of Consecration, then we'd all be better off. So, let's see how we can come closest to achieving that prior to the Millennium. Do we achieve it by having the government force it upon us? Nope. Do we achieve it by having everyone give up all property and not be able to control any natural resources? Nope. Do we achieve it by being systematically motivated to give of our talents and abilities so that others may benefit from it? Yes. Socialism forces it upon us. That is not the Law of Consecration. Communism achieves it by completely destroying everything. That is not the Law of Consecration. Capitalism doesn't have anything to do with God. But it doesn't have anything against God either. It is neutral. It is just a tool that we have the freedom to use as we will for good or for evil. Some men use their talents and abilities to oppress and gain worldly wealth. That is not the Law of Consecration. And if we give of our time, talents, and abilities to the benefit of others, we will reap rewards for which we can give glory to the Lord. He was the one who provided our talents & abilities. We need only choose to spend our time using those abilities. And unlike the other systems, only capitalism gives us the choice to consecrate all things to the Lord.

Thank you for clarifying. We're happy to have you here. So, what, specifically, would you like to see change? And how would you go about it given the framework of the Church?

There is an overlap that needs to be observed here. The things SD is describing seem to be the traits of sociopaths. Not all abusers are sociopaths. But all sociopaths are abusers (be it whatever mode they lean towards). While we can justly state that some of these traits lean toward a sociopathic condition, we need to remember that conditions such as psychopaths, sociopaths, narcissists, borderline personality disorder all fall along a spectrum. And it is difficult for professionals to really tell where someone lies on that spectrum. No hope of us lay people being able to judge that. I've known specific individuals who were raised a certain way that wasn't all that good. But if you got to know them, they only did bad things because that's how they were brought up. Once they were actually educated on right and wrong, they genuinely felt remorse over what they had done. Some of them were raised that way so strongly that they never accepted the correction, and continued in that behavior. And, yes, some people just want to see the world burn. Narcissists, tend more towards emotional abuse than physical. But that is a very gray area. While we can have some very regal sounding definitions of what crosses the line, in practical application we find that they are still vague terms. When does it become abuse? With physical, we used to have a very clear definition: Bones, bruises, & blood. Nowadays, spankings are considered abuse. In some jurisdictions, it is criminalized. And now we have a bystander restraining an assailant being tried for a crime because he was defending the victim. When we can't even define physical abuse anymore, do we really have a chance of legally defining what emotional abuse is? We have in many circles what is defined as "toxic". And there are many examples that I'd agree with. But when those same definitions are "applied" to circumstances where I'd absolutely disagree, it is hard to accept even those definitions. Finally, the bottom line is to ask the question about the Church. If "The Church" isn't doing enough, what would be the steps required to fulfil certain objections levied at the Church. And interesting parallel is this: When atheists deride things that God does or allows, I have to ask "What would you do instead?" And they have very quick quips about their idea. And I realize that they are things that God "cannot do." Suggestions include various ideas that essentially mean: Become a Tyrant. But they just don't realize that is what it means.

When I was a deacon and teacher, I remember hearing messages during priesthood meetings each week and during General Conference where I was really distracted by specific messages. So much so that there were a lot of other messages that I completely missed. What were those distracting messages? They basically told me that men were evil and that women were holy. After having a steady diet of this, I was so afraid of doing anything to a woman that didn't want to go on dates because I thought I was destined to sexually assault any girl I was left alone with. I really didn't want that on my conscience. I was one month shy of my 17th birthday before I went on my first date (yes, it was voluntary, you smurky smirks). I met this girl at a debate tournament who took an interest in me and wasn't shy about letting me know that. It was only then that I realized that it would be ok for me to interact with females. I realized that I'm not destined to do anything bad to them. Years later, as I got to doing more study of the gospel, I searched through any and all GC talks for many subjects. It struck me... Now that I was looking for all subjects, I realized that the percentage of talks that actually addressed the treatment of the women in our lives were much less than what I felt in my mind. But for some reason those talks really struck me as a warning more than any of the other talks I ever heard. When I say it was less, I mean that it was not 100%. But there were still a sufficient percentage that I find it difficult to believe that the topic was neglected. And I'm living proof that they were stern enough and powerful enough that the need to address it was fulfilled. But that is not something that the women of the Church would even realize was happening. They weren't there to hear those messages.

That depends. What do you think socialism is?

I get the impression that it is you who actually believes in socialism and that God's approach is socialism or communism. I'm guessing that you don't really understand the difference.

My daughter sees the light at the end of the tunnel. For as long as she can remember she has suffered from a visual condition. When she was really young, she didn't know there was anything wrong. As she grew older, the problems were worse. Eventually as a teenager, she began verbalizing them. We couldn't really comprehend how bad it was from her scant descriptions. So, I tried working with her using typical home-remedy type things. I was guessing what the problems might be. Non-invasive techniques were the go-to thing at the time. Eventually, as I worked with her more and more, and hearing her verbalize more and more, I began realizing that there was something severely wrong with her. We took her to optometrists and ophthalmologists. We even took her to nutritionists and allergy doctors. That's how wide-ranging the symptoms were. None of them could diagnose what was going on. But one ophthalmologist referred us to a neuro-ophthalmologist. This meant that the problem was not with her eyes, but with her brain. The doctor did many scans and researched much over the course of three visits. Her final diagnosis was "Visual Snow." She sadly informed us that there was no cure. The industry has just barely realized that this was a thing. They didn't know what caused it or what was going on. All they knew was "something is wrong." And she also described several common symptoms. My daughter had all of them. She referred us to another doctor who told us that there was a theoretical procedure being developed, and they need patients for trials. So, he said he'd get us contact information. YEY!!! We had hope! Then COVID... No calls, no emails, the office was closed. No way to get a hold of that doctor or any group that he knew about. We were lost. It was a dead end. No hope. My daughter served a mission. She had a lot of difficulty. But she shoved herself through the experience. And she came home to try to fit in and dive into her adult life. She figured she would follow after her brother who learned CAD. She always liked drawing. To draw on a computer was just a different medium. And she loved making floorplans. But the ultimate goal was to draw land, water, etc. This took special software which my son has mastered. She did fine with Euclidean shapes that are often used on a house. But when she got to earth and water, these were non-Euclidean shapes. And when there were many overlapping/crossing lines her vision made it impossible to go beyond a certain point. While she could try to break into the housing market, these drafters are a dime a dozen. She'd need to have much more experience to make it. But if she were to get into land development, she'd be a shoe-in at any major company. Disappointment set in. She decided to pursue a different field. Around this time, I was asking for a miracle to heal her. I've experienced a lot of miracles in my life (including healing). I have learned to trust in the Lord. I wanted to call on the Lord yet again. When there was another severe illness in the family, the extended family got together to fast for another family member. At that time my FIL altered the Matthew passage to: "This kind goeth not out but by much prayer and fasting." Weary Him until He blesses us. So, I asked my family to fast for her. We fasted and prayed for her every week. I was intending to do this until Christmas this year. At that point I would give her a blessing and she would be healed. So went the plan... But over the past month or so, several lessons from church and speeches from General Conference and Stake Conference, all fit together like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Any one piece seemed to have nothing to do with my daughter. But when they all came together in my mind, I heard Brigham Young's quote: I thought I already tried everything that mortal men can do. I took her to several specialists. That was during a time when my business was slow. It cost a lot. And it's not like I could operate on her brain. So, what was within my capabilities that I was neglecting? Then the words "Visual Snow" came to my mind again. What about it? Yes. What about it? It occurred to me that I was supposed to learn more about it. There's a cure now? You know what to do. I immediately began doing web searches. I came across a path that diverged, but I was guided on which path to take. Again and again. Long story short, I found out that there is not exactly a "cure", but there is a treatment to greatly diminish the symptoms to allow people to live a normal life.. And one of the two doctors who pioneered this treatment is in Dallas. It's a bit of a drive, but it is absolutely worth it. She just had her initial assessment and testing. When she came home she said one very remarkable thing: The next three months will be the proof in the pudding. But we are very hopeful. We're continuing the fast until her treatment is complete. There is so much more I could say about this. I'll forbear because it would bore most people. But it was all very important to me as I experienced it. We may not see a complete cure here. But she has been walking around with 100lb weights on her feet. Even if all we do is make it so she has 50 lb weights on her feet, she will be unstoppable.

What disappoints me more is how much of the American right does the same thing.

https://www.inquirer.com/news/philly-gun-violence-onepa-shooting-homicide-20230508.html Summary: Two campaign canvassers for "progressive candidates running on ending gun violence" in Philly. Both are carrying guns. The younger man shoots and kills the older man. The older man was not allowed to carry due to a previous firearms incident. But he still obtained one illegally. The younger man had it registered to him. He had no criminal record or history of mental illness. So, what progressive policy would have prevented this from happening?

That certainly sounds like a decent conclusion.

In fairness, today's public life in general has forced all sides to adopt this doctrine of "never apologize, never admit you were wrong." People from all sides will pounce. And when it is political, we rarely see any apology accepted with forgiveness given. And that's true for both right and left. I say "rarely" with full intent. I've seen it happen in highly unusual circumstances. I have been pleasantly surprised. One instance was when Van Jones accepted an invitation to attend a CPAC conference to speak about Trump's prison reforms that seemed to be much more merciful to minorities (especially blacks). Van Jones recognized that this was something that he could support even though it came from a political enemy. And he addressed the CPAC crowd to praise the effort. The crowd responded to his speech by chanting "JOIN US! JOIN US!" He smiled and chuckled in response, but politely declined. Put whatever political feelings you have about any of the laws and policies here. What I got out of it was a very warm and cherishable moment of peace and good will between extreme political enemies.

SD, I absolutely don't wish to diminish your experience in any way. And I certainly have a place in my heart for those who have suffered from abuse. I am feeling nothing but compassion and brotherly love towards you right now. And it is very pleasing to me that you've found your way around these issues to a place of happiness. My only comment thus far was about numbers. If you stick around for a while, you'll learn that I'm a numbers guy. I can't really help it. Any time anyone brings up numbers I have to consider statistics, facts, figures, and I start calculating. I made one comment. It was a forensic analysis of the facts. Nothing more. Nothing less. It was not intended in any way to diminish you as a human being or a daughter of God. If it came off that way, I apologize. I thought it worthwhile to balance the information because I've been an eye-witness to abuse in both directions. And it is no less wrong in one direction than the other. Abuse is wrong no matter who is abusing whom.

I've seen other statistics reflecting what you posted.

You first have to accept that the definition of "prodigal" is "wasteful". Once you accept the dictionary definition, then you need only answer the question: What do we waste when we sin?

Good thing she went to the hospital. I can only imagine the damage from a dog that knows Aikido. Oh, Akita... (Cue Emily Litella) Nevermind...

I just saw the episode where Jesus meets back up with John the Baptist after his release from prison. The framing was that Jesus and John were best buddies since childhood. Those two alone were the only ones who knew from the beginning what their missions were. And they had talked about it growing up, making plans, knowing what their roles were, preparing for what was to come, how excited John was for things to finally unfold, how eager he was to see Jesus to fulfill his mission. It seemed that (perhaps apart from Mother Mary) John was the only one who really understood Jesus, and he could be completely himself around him. In many ways John treated him as an equal. They were a team. Still, he gave him the deference due the Messiah. John "played" the part of the wild man so well, that he found it difficult to turn off, even in the presence of Jesus. Nothing in the scriptures really speaks to the nature of their relationship or how much interaction there was before either of their public ministries. We have no idea what their relationship was like. But that was a wonderful scene to behold with an eye-opening perspective. And John's departing words included: (with a smile) "Warnings -- let me know I'm doing my job." Jesus watched for a moment as He saw John leaving, not realizing what Herodias had in mind for him. But Jesus knew and shed a tear for his one true brother in this life. -- so was the portrayal. Well done.