Carborendum

This is actually linked in the Come Follow Me for the week. There is also another one that is linked (different actors). Both put together make an interesting combo.

I resemble that remark

Has anyone noticed an uptick in the number of celebrities dying (of natural causes) this year? Paul Sorvino (Goodfellas) James Caan (The Godfather) David Warner (Tron) Phillip Baker Hall (A list a mile long, but I most recently remember "In Good Company") Ray Liotta (Unlawful Entry) Fred Ward (Remo Williams) Naomi Judd (Country singer) Gilbert Gottfried (Iago from Disney's Aladdin) Estelle Harris (George's mom on Seinfeld) William Hurt (Broadcast News) Alan Ladd (Shane) Sally Kellerman (the "hottie" professor from "Back to School" with Rodney Dangerfield) Ivan Reitman (Director of Ghostbusters) Howard Hesseman (WKRP in Cincinnati) Louie Anderson (Comedian) Meat Loaf (Musician) Bob Saget (Full House) Sidney Poitier (Look Who's Coming to Dinner, Lillies of the Field, Sneakers) Some of these you may not recognize. And there were some that I didn't recognize. But I just happened to hear of a lot of them just by listening to the news. And I was just amazed at how many were this year. About 90% of these actors were ones who I really enjoyed seeing / hearing on the screen. I'll miss their talent.

Welp, looks like those projections may be off by a bit. The reality was just reported. We're apparently in a recession. But I can't find the numbers to back it up. Why is no one posting the numbers? Here is a Forbes article on what a recession actually is. Finally found an official site with GDP growth. https://data.oecd.org/gdp/quarterly-gdp.htm#indicator-chart 2nd quarter was +0.24%... Gee, I'm so excited we're not in a recession. This bank offers its data https://data.oecd.org/gdp/quarterly-gdp.htm#indicator-chart Their number is not a quarterly number. I believe they're saying that the Year-over-year GDP growth was -1.6% That would mean that the 2nd quarter (including a couple weeks of July) show an overall shrinking of the economy for over 6 months. That's a recession. Thankfully, it isn't a very deep one. 1.6% at least gives us a buffer from a depression. I'm not predicting a depression, yet. But if Biden keeps doing some of the things he's proposing, it will become a depression. And it won't be the normal 2 year lag. We'll see market reactions within a month. EDIT: Apparently, these are all unofficial numbers. We still don't have the "official" number until the 28th. We'll see.

I've heard that before. It kind of makes you wonder how much of modern medications are just snake oil. (No offense). Admittedly, I know from personal experience that ibuprofen, aspirin, acetaminophen, and naproxen sodium all work wonders on my headaches. But no one knows how that works either. But this "study of studies" shows that no studies seem to indicate that the seratonin based treatment works at all.

I probably worded that poorly (I'll fix it). Apologies. Here are the interesting findings. It wasn't that there has never been any study. But that no studies conclusively determined that this was an effective treatment. The conclusion: So, whatever it does or does not do, treatment using anti-depressants that are based on serotonin levels doesn't seem to work.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-022-01661-0 They did this study because someone finally realized that the serotonin based treatment had never produced any studies which verified any beneficial results from such treatment. It was all theoretical based on chemistry alone, not actual observations of test subjects. It is important to understand that the chemistry needs to be backed up by actual patient studies because of how complex the human body is -- especially the brain. Offsetting mechanisms, system backups, chemical filters, reactionary operations of the body, drug tolerance, human behavior, etc. all contribute to how effective, ineffective, or counter-effective a chemical reaction may be. The results say that they cannot confirm whether serotonin-based anti-depressants can actually treat depression. Some studies show that they tend to have an opposite effect. While it is preliminary, the findings are extremely surprising to the medical field. More studies are required for confirmation and thorough understanding of the "why". We'll see how this runs the course as the profession begins to wake up about this.

In doing the reading for this week, I found a couple of interesting things today regarding the Book of Esther. Historians (including Jewish historians) tend to believe this is fiction. Historical fiction, but fiction nonetheless. One theory calls it a "historical novella." Feminists tend to be greatly offended by this story (quelle suprise!) because it talks of a "fool of a king" banishing his queen for simply refusing to appear when summoned. And they blame this on the fact that the king was drunk. Probably with a bunch of drunk friends. And she really wasn't in the mood for that. Ok. Well, People tend to rank it up there with Song of Solomon since these are the only two books that do not mention God. Of course, most of Christianity believes the Song of Songs to be a metaphor for Christ's love for his people. Uhmmm... yeah... So, any thoughts on Eshter?

6th grade as well. It was not a speed contest. It was just an exam. Mrs. Walls gave us the states, and we had to name the capital. There were only three of us who got 100%... come to think of it, I'm not sure if #3 got 100%, but he was close.

There are two aspects of this principle that need to be described. Burdens of sin. Burdens of the trials of life. BURDENS OF SIN As far as the burdens of sin, the Atonement is not just a principle that effects our eternal destiny. It helps us TODAY. As we go through the repentance process, we feel the guilt, sorrow, and offense fade away. With more serious sins with more serious mortal consequences, they may not go away completely. That little bit remaining is to remind us how wrong it was. It gives us motivation to never do it again. But the debilitating weight we feel will be lifted. That can happen today. What does it look like? I had been burdened by sorrow over a particular thing I did. I prayed about it. I don't know how to describe all that happened next. I simply had a miraculous change of heart. I began doing things I'd never done before. I took measures to do the exact opposite of what I had done before. I went from running away from doing something I was afraid of doing, to knowing how important it was to do it. Now I have it as a conscious part of my personality. BURDENS OF LIFE When we have trials, we most often don't have these weights removed. We're often given strength to bear them up. A long time ago I experienced my first period of prolonged unemployment. For a person of my disposition, you may as well have castrated me. I was lost and despondent. While I had given up, my wife had not. I have come to recognize when my wife has made special intercession for me through prayer. While I was wallowing, she was praying. And at some point, I simply felt that there was a sense of purpose. I could do other things while I was unemployed. The burden of unemployment was not taken away. I still had financial issues to deal with. But I no longer felt lost. I saw a distant horizon that was beautiful. HOW Now, this is probably what you're really asking. How do you have access to such power? There is no magic wand. No trick. And certainly no shortcuts. We simply do what we're always told to do. Recognize that there is a problem. Humble ourselves before the Lord and our fellow men. Pray for forgiveness and pray for help.* Look for the Lord's hand in our lives. Look for the additional help that the Lord is offering because of our prayers. Accept His strength that is offered. * You may notice that praying for forgiveness is part of the process even if it is a burden of life rather than a burden of sin. Mark 2:5-12

You mean, it's not? Kidding!!!

The first rule about Texas' hunting methods is: We don't talk about Texas' hunting methods.

OK, I forgot we were talking about the BoM. I was still thinking about Shakespeare. Back to the BoM. "attempt to mimic it." You say that like it's a bad thing. It was actually quite common among the VERY Christian 19th century America. Families were raised on the KJV. People would quote the KJV as part of every day speech. They used the KJV to teach the children how to read. People used the Bible to learn foreign languages. They'd have a Bible in English, one in the foreign language, a bilingual dictionary, and a grammar book. That's how common it was to know and understand that language. Yes, the common 19th century America had its own vernacular and speech patterns. But in common practice, when someone wanted to make a point, the KJV was their go-to for authority on right and wrong. And they avoided paraphrasing or "modernizing" it. They quoted. And everyone understood because that was what they were raised with. In fact, I don't think I've ever read any of the 19th century critics of the BoM complain that the archaic language was one of their complaints. That seems to be entirely a modern invention to complain about it. Even in the latter half of the 20th century when I grew up, as Christianity was fading, I was raised to pray like that. I was raised reading the KJV. So, I really don't think much of the linguistic differences. This was the culture that Joseph Smith was raised in. So, it is no wonder that when translating a work that was to go side-by-side with the KJV, that he used the same language as the KJV as far as he knew how. This basically consisted of using "thou art" instead of "you are." Pretty simple. I just don't see the fuss. One school of thought was that Joseph considered not only the KJV to be sacred, but the KJV language itself to be sacred. So, when being scriptural, it only made sense for him to use that language as best he could. I certainly wouldn't fault him for thinking the Bible is sacred. I'd like your honest opinion as to which "sounds better". Not more familiar, but better. And I'll just modernize the thee and verb conjugation. Yes, they say the same thing. But the second is just plain boring. If I wanted the reader to fall asleep, I'd write it in that manner. And notice the use of the present progressive vs. the present indicative. There is more power and more formality in the indicative than the progressive. It speaks to the mind differently. Not only that, we have the "ending a sentence with a preposition" issue. That is how we speak today. That is common speech. And according to my English teacher, it isn't "incorrect". But it is stylistically weaker to do so. Is that how we want scriptures to sound like? Remember that scriptures are to convey an overall message that paints a picture and conveys emotion as well as forensic information. "My heart goaneth" is quite emotional in such a way that we can relate. When I hear "I feel sad", I tend to roll my eyes and someone who is just complaining. Then there is the improper pronoun usage of "who". It is the object of the sentence. But people today talk like that. Is that what you want? What is different about "speaking like people talk today" vs "contemporary with proper grammar" vs "speaking with a different grammar that was once correct, like the day it was written?" Aside: I always feel pricked when I hear people use "you and I" when they should say "you and me". Similarly, people who always use "whom" regardless of object / subject. Anyway. Yes, there are reasons to use this language. Is it sacred? I don't know. I tend to like it. Is it wrong to change the language to a more contemporary vernacular? I don't know about "wrong", but I think things will get lost as we do so.

Out of curiosity, what does "church" mean to you? Is there only one definition? Or do you use the same word with different meanings for different contexts?

Yes, it was better. But you pretty much nailed it. To your earlier point, yes, it may be a personal preference. But I cannot put aside the elegance of the Bard's choice of words. Such meaning and weaving of sound, meaning, metaphor, and trickery of linguistics. "Out. Out, brief candle." (I'm sure this inspired Elton John). "This proud o'er-hanging firmament (look, you, the sky)." (I wonder if it inspired "High Flight"). "And anything that may not misbecome The Mighty Sender, doth he prize you at." (I have a book of "Shakespeare's Inuslts"). "‘Our doubts are traitors, And make us lose the good we oft might win, By fearing to attempt." And interesting words like "aroint". No, we don't use that one anymore. Is there any that can compare? I have read Cyrano de Bergerac in the original French. I've read the original Don Quixote in the original Spanish. And I get the story and the emotional meanings of the passages. Unfortunately, I can't grasp the beauty of the language since it isn't my primary language. But with English, yes, I see the beauty of the archaic tongue. Does anything compare to Shakespeare? "By the Eternal! There is a man whose form should be cast in deathless bronze and the statue placed in every college of the land." (Oh, wait, I believe it is.) "When in the course of human events... we mutually to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." "... to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..." Language was not invented to communicate, but to cause women to swoon. Yet, I find myself swooning at the beauty of such language. Me, a man of numbers. I appreciate beauty in all things. Numbers are not beautiful. They simply are. My wife is beauty incarnate. The painted pictures of intricate language is also beautiful. "The tulip field's sunrise after the rain." Yes, beauty in words is something that tends to mesmerize me.

If we take all your points here and put it together with other things we know, the point of intersection of these lines would be that the photograph is of Joseph III. That would be supported by the fact that while I don't believe it is Joseph II's face, it certainly would pass for a near male relative. @scottyg mentioned Samuel. That's also a possibility. But being in Bertha's locket, a more likely candidate would be Joseph III. Your theory of the picture being from her side of the family is also valid. But that would discount any blood relation to Joseph II. It is also possible that Bertha's family shared some physiological/facial similarities with the Smith family.

I think I sort of understand. I'm not really a collector myself.

Agreed. I understand he arrived on April 27th. I did not know he was staying at the Smith mansion at the time. That is certainly a fact that pushes the meter more towards credibility. Yes, yes. I'm familiar with the technology. Makes sense. No, the studio (the place where pictures are taken) doesn't take much time at all. My father (a professional photographer) had a mobile set that he could set up in an hour. It was the gathering of equipment, supplies, etc. Then the actual equipment to be used needed to be set up. If he already set it up prior to the prophet's death, then he could easily have moved it the few blocks away to his residence. It would have taken maybe a day to have people help him move the stuff. But it wouldn't have taken four months. It certainly took longer than today's technology. But according to the latest tour of the print house in Nauvoo, they said it took a couple of days for a full article. The only reason for it to take longer is if it required unusual artwork. That article you posted only had common text. I could believe that. If all the rest happened, that would certainly seem reasonable. That is a good point. And it would explain the difference in the cheek-to-mouth crease that I noticed. But it does not explain other differences. Perhaps there are other explanations for these additional differences. But there are still other differences. This may actually counter the previous point above. The reason why people didn't smile in old photos is that it is difficult to smile for 20 to 30 min a stretch. Smiling takes muscles. Death does not. The muscles in the cheek bones don't droop. Fatty cheeks do. Joseph was not a fatty. Yup. Agreed. I disagree that this fact explains ALL the differences I see.

.

OK, you got me on those. I wouldn't have gotten those either. But my point still stands, the vast majority of the Book of Mormon is fairly easy to understand as long as you can get past the pronoun usage. I'm sure you could find a few exceptions. But the fact is that you can find such exceptions in most long books written to a post college audience. So, what's the problem? Do you really want it written so a 6th grader could understand it (esp. today's 6th graders)? If I saw a book like that claiming to be written as formal scripture, I'd probably drop it like a bad habit.

I'm curious about this. Help me understand. I realize many people would find this really exciting. You're apparently one, as are many on this forum. For myself, I don't get it. It's a photograph. Whether real or not, what does it actually do for us? I don't understand it. I understand historical records. So, yes, put it in a museum or archive for preservation. I understand "memories". Photographs can often spark memories of events and feelings during those events. And if it is a memory that has faded, the photo can spark those memories and feelings anew. Sound great. But this is a person we have no living memory of. We know "about" him from books, writings, stories, etc. All those things we have access to without the aid of a photo that was taken in a studio that we have no memory of. So, what is the deal? Maybe it is one of those things that comes from a person of my background. But I just don't get it.

I can't speak on behalf of the English, but if someone were to "appropriately" quote the Bard as the situation calls for it, I'd think that was perfectly fine. But there is the issue of communication. I once quoted Merchant of Venice to a friend of mine who was moderately educated. He had no idea what I said. But that happens if you speak out of someone's knowledge base. Try this joke: Just because the person I'm talking to doesn't get it, doesn't mean it isn't funny. I'd believe that most "educated" Brits, and many "educated" Americans understand those words since they come from the most famous soliloquy of all time. But then again, it is like saying the one recognizes Beethoven's 5th because one knows four notes. So, there's that... I'm just weird because I generally look up words when I don't understand them. Then I tend to remember the definitions.

I can speak to the Spanish and French versions. It is easier for them to understand it than English speakers understand the KJV. The primary difference is the use of pronouns and their verb conjugations. Take that out, and we're not that far from the KJV. And as a Brit, I'm confused why you consider it more difficult to understand than Shakespeare. Spanish Examples: One thing that puzzles speakers of both languages is that the "thee/thou" is considered the familiar form. Yet that is what we use for God? In Spanish they have the Singular familiar (thou/tu) Singular formal (you/usted) Plural familiar (ye/vosotros) Plural formal (you/ustedes) Yet, Biblical language always uses the "tu" and "vosotros". Beyond that, we have to get rid of all contemporary jargon and slang. So, the more educated and formal your contemporary speech, the less of a problem you'll have with the remainder of the work. In fact, there was an instance where BoM language helped me understand in item in the Concrete Code that my colleagues couldn't make out. The Code used "or" in an unusual way. It is normally a conjunction. But in this context it clearly meant "or I mean to say" or "in other words." This was used a few times in the BoM. And having read it as many times as I have, I immediately understood the meaning in the code. But my colleagues did not. Once I pointed that meaning out, they all understood that it made a lot more sense. But they simply couldn't make heads or tails of it before.

The time of overlap hasn't changed since then. The only new variable is the introduction of Lucian Foster. Curious timeline: 1) He moved in to Nauvoo two months before Joseph was arrested (two months to the day of his martyrdom). 2) Joseph was arrested in June. 3) The studio was set up in August of that year. Is it possible that he took a photo of Joseph in that brief two month period? If he were able to take a photo of Joseph that quickly, why wait several more months to set up the studio for the public? It didn't take that long to set up a studio. It is the equipment to take and develop the photo that takes the time. If that was all set up, the studio is just a day or so of work. Possible, yes. Probable, no. And we still deal with the fact that the image has distinct differences from the death mask.

Yes, August is after June. So...