Carborendum

I am conceding the eyebrow. (cue Elliot Spencer) It's a very distinctive brow. But, no, the eyelashes would not be too much to ask of the daguerreotype. The detail of the brow itself seems to indicate that the eyelashes would have been caught as well. The description of the length of his eyelashes was of when he was an adult, not a child.

Context. Verse 15. It was Peter's house. Was Jesus' wife's mother part of Peter's household? If not, why would she specifically minister to them instead of the women of the house?

I recall someone's description of Joseph as having lengthy eyelashes that would make most women jealous. Is there a reason why he wouldn't have much in the way of eyelashes in this photo?

Freakin' A(u)ssie!!!

Message me and we'll talk... I mean, uh, of course not. Why would you ask that?

Gen 14:18 It was taken up some time after the Tower of Babel and before the death of Abraham. We don't have dates.

Aww, man. You don't need to buy it. It's free online. Since you're getting it, you have to keep in mind that it consists of four types of changes. 1) Updated phrasing/vocabulary due to semantic shift). (About 40-45%) 2) Commentary/clarification. (About 40-45%) 3) Things that were lost have been restored. (about 2-5%) 4) Actual corrections. (The remaining 2-5%). 5) Changes because he was modifying principles for our dispensation only. But is correct as it stands. (2-5%) Since no one today really knows where those lines were drawn, those percentages are only my own top-of-the-head estimation from what I've read so far.

This is a fair question that many Saints have posed. And there doesn't seem to be a consensus. There are two common lines or reasoning on the topic. I'll share one of them. There seems to be a disagreement on whether the Telestial and/or Terrestrial Kingdoms are a form of salvation or a form of damnation. I tend to think it is both. You're saved from hell. But you don't get to live with God. So, if you don't live with God, but you don't stay in hell, is that salvation? Or is that damnation? If you were LDS and believed these things, how would you see it? ************ I don't see the phrase "saved in our sins" anywhere in that passage. We all sin all the time. We're all sinners. And even when we try to change, we still have sins which stain our souls. If you want to use that as a definition of "in our sins" then we believe the same thing. By that definition, we are saved "in" our sins. But the gospel of Jesus Christ requires repentance. The word is used in various form about 60 or 70 times in the New Testament alone. In each case, it means to feel remorse and turn away from sin. Repentance at least requires effort, even if you think you're not making progress, you keep trying. You're on the wagon. You may fall off, but you get back on. The Book of Mormon meaning of "in our sins" means that we refuse to feel any remorse or make any effort to turn away from the sin. If we are still looking toward sin, we cannot be looking toward the Savior. They are in opposite directions. One cannot say that they embrace sin and love the Lord. That is a lie. Which direction does your tent face?

I don't see why XI would be opposed to simply ordering another Tiananmen Square event.

I'm not sure if this is as bad as we might think. Many Chinese live on so little, that they may be happy to get 3000 calories a day in food. As for the flavors that they reviewer mentioned, Asians don't care. Heck, I'm an Americanized Asian, and I don't see a problem with the rations. I could live on that for months and be happy. I actually lived on less for about 9 months? (IIRC) while going to college.

Their raw numbers don't really matter much in today's age of technological warfare (I'm using a very broad definition here). I have no way of knowing if they'd actually use their nuclear devices. They'd have to be convinced that the US would not retaliate. So, they'd only use them on soft targets. I think this is why China will be more likely to attack Russia than the South China Sea region. Xi Xinping has shown himself to be a man who would sell out his own children if it meant that he would get more power. I wonder if in his own twisted mind, he actually believes that would also guarantee Chinese prosperity. The raw numbers is also a weakness that Xi doesn't seem to care about. If the supply chains are blocked off, he'll just cut rations to "the unwashed masses." I'm not sure about this. Yes, they have the biggest standing army in history. But what does that mean when we can carpet bomb them to oblivion? They can't easily transport those troops by air or sea. I'm not an expert on the details of warfare, but how do you see it playing out where their numbers would matter? It would seem that they'd only matter to Asia. What would they gain from that? India and Afghanistan (all the -Stans) are not exactly soft targets. India is about to surpass China for population. Yup. And I don't know how this can be countered with the rising generation. If you can excuse me for a bit of racial stereotyping: Asians, math, computers. And beyond stereotypes, there are some realities. China has made it a point to get the best math and science minds in their country to work for the government. Meanwhile, the woke ideology is actually born from Chinese propaganda to demoralize the US. And it specifically targets Asians at the advanced education levels. Of course, it hasn't been as successful as they had hoped. But it has made a dent in the quality of overall candidates for STEM fields.

So, how true does it compare to the Bible storyline?

What do you make of Matt 1:21?

I'm sure there is some of that going on. It is doubly difficult for me to understand "forgetting" things because of my memory. I really wish I could forget some things. But I can't. And yet, I suppose most people conveniently forget things that they find to be troublesome facts. But as John Adams said: Facts are stubborn things.

Anyone taking bets on WWIII? The US is gearing up for war with China. It may be "just in case". Or it could be, "Yeah, it's happening." Zelensky said we're going to have US troops fighting with them. (Prediction? Warning? Demand?) The media's 180 on the COVID lab leak is saying that they are not going to pull punches to salvage our relationship with China. Taiwan just received a whole lot of materiel from the US to defend against the persistent Chinese fly-overs.

The original meaning of repent in Middle English came from the French word meaning "To feel regret to the point of seeking forgiveness." This meaning was so close that regret and repent were considered synonymous until Modern English. That is why in the KJV still uses the older meaning when it says "It repented the Lord that he had made man." The French, in turn, came from the Latin word which implies: redact, return, redeem, recover. Exactly. There is an interesting "poke" at the Pharisees in Luke 5:32. Speaking to the Pharisees, the Savior says that the "righteous" (i.e. the Pharisees) are not part of Christ's ministry because they believe themselves to be righteous due to their good deeds and observance of the Law. But he's come to save the sinners. He is telling them that because they already consider themselves righteous, they are not penitent. Therefore, Christ's Atonement will not help them. But because these "sinners" are repentant, the Atonement will have power over them, and they can be saved. These sinners felt regret for their sins. Their sin troubled them to the point of repentance. If our sins don't trouble us at all, we are not penitent. We feel no need to call upon the power of the Atonement. We're being too Prideful. If our sins trouble us so badly that we don't feel worthy of the Atonement, that's the devil trying to dissuade us from repenting. The happy medium is that we will feel just enough regret that we're motivated to seek the power of the Atonement. Then we need to stay on the path. If we keep falling off the wagon, then we need to get right back on. And we continue to endure to the end.

In the past, I had this same line of reasoning that justified me giving Scientologists the benefit of the doubt when I hear weird things about them. But I have actually kept mental note of news articles surrounding them. And parts of the façade are beginning to crumble. It is becoming more and more difficult to give them the benefit of the doubt. The most recent thing is their leader has been subpoenaed to appear in court. He has been dodging the server. So, the judge declared it served. We'll see how this unfolds. I'm trying to give them the benefit of the doubt. But I'm cautious at this point. As far as JWs. I've personally known for an extended period, three JWs. The first was just plain argumentative any time we brought up religion. The second was just fine and willing to keep things professional at work... until he discovered I was a Mormon. After that he would bring up another criticism of our faith any chance he got. The third was not really active, but still believed. He didn't really care about anything. He was fine just having me as a roommate. And one time our landlord (a non-practicing Muslim -- he couldn't even cite the five pillars) wondered what the difference was between these different faiths in Christianity. (Our last roommate was an evangelical who was raised as a Catholic). We expressed what the differences were in the broadest terms of how we view Christ. Everyone agreed the differences were accurate. So, it is safe to say that we are well aware of at least that core difference. What are the chances that a Muslim, a Mormon, a JW, and an evangelical/Catholic were all housed in the same rental house?

It didn't occur to me until I saw this video... A long time ago, I frequented a prepping forum. On the forum there was a guy who claimed to be a "recovering Mormon." He kept spouting off things that were completely twisted or downright false doctrines from half-phrases in scriptures. He said he was in the Church for 35 years. After listening to multiple things he said, I had to conclude one of three things: He was mentally challenged. He was completely lazy in his studies and his attentiveness in classes. He was flat out lying. After listening to this woman, I am leaning towards the same assessment for both of these people. All three conditions apply. How on earth do they get things THIS wrong? Like they commented: There are plenty of doctrines that are really weird that are actually true. Why not go after those things?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covid19-death-rates-us-by-state/ You are right that the top 8 states were certainly not the most populous states. But still no South Dakota. It doesn't appear until after several more populous states.

Maybe I missed it. But I didn't see anything about South Dakota. Here are the worst (from worst to least worst). St. Louis, Missouri Jackson, Mississippi Detroit, Michigan New Orleans, Louisiana Baltimore, Maryland Memphis, Tennessee Cleveland, Ohio Baton Rouge, Louisiana Kansas City, Missouri Shreveport, Louisiana

Not just Catholics. Most conservatives agree with this. In fact many of the "red-pilled" Democrats agree with most of the stuff he's been doing. I've only heard bits and pieces of this. Partial quotes. Not enough context. It may be true. But there are some things thrown back and forth that indicate that the devil's in the details. I haven't had time to do a thorough research on this, but the gist of it is that: Lee did advocate for "sunsetting" those programs. Media said he didn't ask for sunsetting, but for immediate abolition. I'm getting mixed stories on what Biden actually said (details). Media says that Biden claimed that Lee wanted to sunset it. And that was bad enough. Lee said that what shocked him was that Biden claimed that he wanted to immediately abolish it. Again, bits and pieces. I never took the time to sort it out because it's never going anywhere. And no one is even talking about it. I agree (except for the life support thing). He's still more popular than you seem to believe. The only reason why Beto came so close was that Dems poured more money into his senate campaign than they normally do on a Presidential campaign. Meanwhile, Cruz spent a somewhat below average budget on his campaign.

Yeah. I don't know if Trump realizes how artificial his attempts at religiosity sound to someone of sincere belief. Heck even atheists can tell how artificial he sounds.

Nayib Bukele is the current President of El Salvador. He has recently gained notoriety by putting away many people from gangs and drug cartels. He has cut the murder rate in half. People actually have hope of living in peace. And he has made the military and police feel like they can be proud to simply do their jobs without being attacked by their own government. And they are looking forward to a time when they can say that they actually won the war on drugs. This seems like the exact mirror image of what is happening in the United States. One problem here is that in order to achieve this, he essentially suspended habeas corpus. (People were thrown into a supermax prison without a trial.) I don't know what the El Salvadorian Constitution says about that. And I don't know their system of laws. But it seems like an extreme measure. Maybe his country needed it. Maybe there was another way. I don't know. But that is what I would call a last resort. Some sources are praising him for his accomplishments. But his success may simply mean that he won't want to let go of power. I don't know him or his history or motives. I just know that when extreme measures have been used to accomplish "peace" sometimes the people doing so want to continue using extreme measures to hold on to power. Maybe he will walk away as Washington did. I hope so because of what he had recently said about his vision. For eight months, we have been fighting this war against the gangs. And thank God, we are winning. This is a very surprising victory that is nearly within our grasp. Let it be clear that the glory is for God. We humans are lucky to be instruments of God, all of us, to bring peace, liberty, and happiness to the Salvadoran people. Peace is built with hard work, with sweat, with effort, and with the bravery that you and your brothers in the police have. It is worth risking your life for that purpose that is more important than yourself alone. Values such as bravery, such as courage, such as strength, discipline, patriotism, honor, loyalty, and love for your fellow man. These are the fundamental values for human society, but these values are increasingly scarce in the world. If you watch the international news, you will see how the most important values for human beings, such as honor, loyalty, bravery, courage, and love for your fellow man, are precisely the values that we are losing with each passing day. And that is why you can see how societies that seemed to have won, now are degrading, as they are losing the values that made them great. These values were probably not strong in this land, and were strong in other lands. And that is why those lands grew and became great. But they are losing those values now. Over the past few years, many voices have been saying that if the United States is going to have a new birth of freedom, then we cannot do it with political will. That is an after effect only. The power to change comes from God. As long as we put hope in a politician who uses political power alone to make change -- we will fail. To succeed we need the power of God in our individual lives, and in the lives of those whom we elect. But do we have that? In anyone? We obviously don't see it in either Biden or Trump. Do we see it in DeSantis? He seems to be popular among the Catholics (he is Catholic). But I have no idea how much his faith influences his life. I had no idea he was Catholic until I Googled it. That tells you how much he has talked about it in public or how much the media cares. Do WE care? And if not DeSantis, who is? I have a friend in Utah who is highly involved in politics. He says that Mike Lee is the real deal. But there is no way he's going to be elected as President. So, we can depend on him for excellent service as a senator. How about anyone else? Do we have any way of knowing? Of the two Texas senators, John Cornyn is just a politician. Nothing more. Ted Cruz is a very honest man. And he is a dang good lawyer. His ability to look at the law and explain it is top notch. But I have no idea how much God is a part of his life. Anyone else? I have no idea. If we don't have sufficient leaders who put God first, do we have hope?

Believe it or not, I recognize that. But when you essentially called me crazy for my concerns earlier, it seemed that you really didn't have any concerns about the establishment line. At the beginning, I only had caution. Later, I started having questions. Later, I noticed all the lies. I say lies because if they were simply "mistakes" they would have corrected themselves when new information came in. Instead, they doubled down. Then when I noticed just how many things they got wrong were revealed even by mainstream media to be false... Well, what am I supposed to think?

The question I was asking about "necessary" etc. was about speech, not physicality. We can hold our tongues in the name of politeness. But the Founding Fathers included freedom of speech in the Bill of Rights for a reason. At what point do we decide to say unpleasant truths that will have a high probability of causing (cue: Steven He) emotional damage because someone needs to say it? Justification of physical violence is outlined in the Declaration. But in interpersonal relationships? When political ideology is being shoved into our faces?