Carborendum

I'm sure it comes as no surprise to anyone, but... The supposed 10 yo girl in Ohio having to "flee" to Indiana for an abortion appears to be a hoax. Ohio's Attorney General said his office would have some wind of such a case through requests for DNA kits, rape kits, investigations, search for suspects, etc. But he has NONE of that. Additionally, Ohio law allows for abortion in such cases. So, there wouldn't have been a need to go to another state at all.

This is interesting to consider. The Greek word "Charagma" (the mark) can mean: A stamp, or imprinted mark (sounds like a "brand" to me -- as in slaves). Something carved or a graven work. I wonder if this dual meaning is intentional. It seems interesting to me that man creates idolatrous gods to mold them into whatever they want, so they can do whatever they want. But in the end it turns out that the reward is according to the Lord's plan, not ours. When I read these opposing uses of the word "seal", I see two very different pictures. We procrastinate the day of our repentance. We are branded as a slave to the devil. We inherit all that Satan has. OR We humble ourselves before the Lord, we repent, and continue in "good works". We are sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise. We inherit all that the Father hath. Why, oh, why are we so quick to choose the former rather than the latter? I remember a quote from Joseph (help me with the reference if someone can) saying something like "The devil only has such power over us as we allow him." And I do believe this also covers possession. Although, I'm not too certain on the details. I can conceive of a person who is considered your "basically good guy" that even does a lot of "good works" as perceived by man, but continues to procrastinate repentance. In fact, he figures, he's doing enough good works that he just doesn't bother with repentance. Cain sacrificed to the Lord, but it was counted unto him for naught because he never humbled himself before the Lord. He never repented. Repentance is the first fruits of faith in the Lord. Without repentance, nothing else even matters. I am being moved to believe that in the past, the "Mark" may have very well been figurative. But I see history and realize there is a pattern. We begin with cycles of wondering from the Lord, and we take on figurative marks. The society degenerates slowly with each successive generation. Eventually, they take upon themselves a real/literal mark. I find it interesting that the Lord said He would set the mark on them. But the fulfilment was that they set it upon themselves. In the US, we have always seen changes in fashion and culture that indicate a desire to separate one group of people from another group of people. It is as if we create and adopt "cultural uniforms". In many ways, we do this because we want to "identify" with a certain group. It is our way of saying "We're this category of person, so treat us accordingly." But for some reason, people don't really like it when we treat them like that category that they have chosen. It is entirely possible that a similar cultural tendency will drive John's "mark". Thus it could be a literal seal or brand (or tattoo???). And it seems that they will tend to set it on themselves. But that seems less important than the reason the mark even exists. Rebellion Pride Procrastinate/ignore repentance Be true to man (or ourselves) rather than true to the Lord. Mockery from the great and spacious building against those who want to hold fast to the iron rod and partake of the fruit.

I've read two stories along that vein. 1) The story specifically said she was going to abort the baby because of an experience she had just had with a man who seemed to support women's rights. But... so, she said she was going to abort her son once she found out it was a boy. However, various news outlets were unable to verify it and found sufficient inconsistencies which led them to believe it was a hoax. 2) Another story where a lesbian couple wanted a girl. Their fertility clinic said they could sexually screen out the embryos to guarantee a girl. They sued the clinic. The "mother" said that she never planned to abort. But she touted how "violated" she felt with having a male inside her body. That takes a special kind of warped to feel that way about a baby she agreed to have inside her. I need to clarify something. The quote was Buttigieg saying out loud -- probably meant "right". The author of the article used the spelling "rite".

Yeah, that was the sort of thing I was noticing. I had said the same thing to my Sunday School instructor. He had asked, "Why do we use that phrase 'wicked and adulterous generation' seeking for a sign?" People were quick to say how figurative it was, etc. I agreed with the figurative meanings of the phrase. But we were really dancing around the real meaning. I said, "I think we're ignoring the elephant in the room. I don't know of any behavior by otherwise God-fearing people that more commonly and more easily chases the Spirit away than a breach of the law of chastity." It suddenly got really quiet in the room. Did I say something amiss?

I understand that is the common thread. But after reading more on historical websites, there is much more about the historical worship of Moloch than what we read in the Bible.

I've been reading a lot about Moloch lately to see what was the reality. I can't really make much sense of it. They can't really determine who worshipped him or not or if it was a "god" or a king or god/king like Pharaoh. I'm still reading. Maybe it will clear itself up after more reading.

I found this kind of amusing, even thought provoking. From Dailywire: I don't know if the author of the article intentionally did this, subconsciously did this, or completely unintentionally did this, or perhaps she didn't even know the difference? But, uhmmm... yeah.

You might want to read the article I linked to. You're close. But there are some details...

https://www.history.com/news/how-the-challenger-disaster-changed-nasa The engineers submitted their warnings about the ambient temperature. Management was more concerned about public image, and ignored them. Seven people died, so did America's dream of exploration. I'm not aware that they made any change any change to the design. Later, when the Columbia blew up, we found that heat can kill jist as well as cold. This disaster was also preventable. But it was a result of the engineers not focusing on the right thing. But they told the President that it was not preventable due to other reasons. Bush finally declared that after the ISS was complete, we would retire the space shuttle program.

I just tried posting the files. But pdf is not supported. (I converted .epub to .pdf). Each volume is less than 1MB as an .epub. But it over 5MB as a pdf.

You don't need to spend the buck. It's in the public domain. https://gutenberg.org/ebooks/search/?query=decline+and+fall+of+the+roman+empire&submit_search=Go!

a miI've been noticing a trend recently that is too strong to ignore. The current raving (potentially criminal and treasonous) acts from the left, with the pleas to kill The SCOTUS justices, is leading me to see the historical pattern that the Roman Empire had. One method of secession that will not spark a war is if there is a federal crisis that means NO ONE will get the kids. Kill the kids, and destroy all assets. Then all of a sudden, a divorce is moot. We may have a Western Empire/Byzantine pattern. I've just begun reading about the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. It is very long and very complicated. So, there might not be a complete parallel. But I sure am seeing a LOT of commonalities thus far. "Secession" as such, may not be required to provide the same results. Interesting reading.

That isn't really how it works. The reasons behind the three degrees are not some sort of performance/rewards program. It is much deeper than that. Think about it for a while.

Yes, that's what I said.

I'm having trouble defining the Church of the Devil It seems pretty clear that you're either on one side or the other. We further read about the MANY churches. The fact that there are "many" in 2 Ne, but only two in 1 Ne, I interpret this to mean that 2 Ne is now using a more common definition of "church" that we're used to. So, how does that relate to the definition in 1 Ne? It has been common to believe that there is only "TCOJCOLDS" and "everyone else". But I think this idea is flawed. I can't seem to find the quote. But there was a quote (I believe it was George Q. Canon?) who said that we are not alone in our fight. There is too much work for any one people to do. So, we don't consider other churches to be adversaries, but allies. One way to weigh align all these ideas is that 1 Ne talking about "two churches only" was referring to the end times when the battle lines would be clearly drawn. It could also mean that the battle lines are not drawn between Terrestrial and Celestial. Perhaps, it is even drawn at O.D. and Telestial. I don't know. It's a theory. But what are we to think about these three ideas?

Oh, we already thought that a few years ago. If you're pondering, I'd advise you to ponder how you would re-word the question when considering it from how the Three Degrees of Glory actually work.

I can't believe you lost the O-ring. -- Saved for future use.

You make a good point about the area where the inheritances were drawn. As for evidence, I haven't looked into it deeply enough. Despite lack of evidence, we do have two facts as outlined in scriptures: 1. The Moabites were driven from the land of Moab (verse cited previously). 2. David entered the temple. On the other hand, if we assume your initial idea was true, I wonder if it is possible that Ruth, herself was an exception. Theory: Her family came from Israel to Moab just one generation before. Hence Naomi's sons married them without any worries. Thus she could accurately be called a Moabite because she was born there, and also not be subject to the prohibition for David to enter the temple. As I said...a theory. We may never know. But it is an interesting variable in the mystery of why the kinsman refused, but Boaz didn't have a problem with it.

I'm drawing a distinction from the "land of Moab" vs the "blood of Moab". I'm not saying "all" of the residents of the area were apostate Israelites. Whether there were any other foreigners in the land at the time of Ruth, I have no idea. I am saying that descendants of Moab were no longer living there because they were driven out. While it says that they were "utterly destroyed", we know that there were some who remained, else why the prohibition in Deut 23:3? So, those who survived were driven out of the land. Deut 29:8 tells us about the land being given to the three tribes I mentioned before. So, if we separate the "blood" from the "land", we see a different picture. The prohibition in the Law was about the blood of Moab. But even after the blood of Moab were driven out, the "land" was still called "Moab". And very quickly, any inhabitants therein were called "Moabites". So, regardless of who inhabited the land, whether apostate Israelites or some other group (so long as they were not of the lineage of Moab) the prohibition did not apply to them. The fact that David came from that line only after three generations attests to that fact. With respect, the fact that you seemed to have confused my description in this short thread gives credence to how the kinsman could have done likewise.

We've been told that there will come a time when we cannot tell whither is truth except by listening to the Holy Ghost. We cannot depend on those around us. No borrowed oil anymore. Most of our private school is pretty good as far as ideology. It was based on an LDS homeschooling philosophy. But there are those who buy into worldly ways. No, nowhere is perfectly safe. Even our instructors at church are not safe. The manuals the Church has made are more about following the Spirit than about actual gospel "factoids" or doctrinal knowledge. We do the best we can, and we hope things will get better. But only vigilance will keep us on the path.

The "gut feeling" is a mortal interpretation of all the inputs we are receiving at any given moment of introspection. If most of the inputs come from the Lord, it closely approximates what the Spirit is telling you. If most of the inputs are from mortal stimuli, then you'll probably make a very mortal decision. The "mortal decisions" are not necessarily wrong. They are simply mortal decisions. The "promptings" of the Spirit are quite different. But they certainly can feed into your overall gut reaction to something.

None of the above. If you look at final judgment as the sectarians do, your options would be much more applicable. But with the three degrees of glory, there is a completely different paradigm. Each of the kingdoms is not based on "how much mercy you deserve or need". It is about what our eternal potential truly is.

I'm not familiar with the thread you mentioned. Thus I don't know all the subtleties of the discussion. So, I have a different take: While "The Work" will move forward, some individuals may be left behind. It is a difficult question to consider whether our conditions may dictate our salvation. On the one hand, if our circumstances will affect our decisions, then it almost takes out the issue of free agency. On the other hand, we're told that we "won't be tried above that which we are able to bear." I'm not really sure if that's an official teaching of the Church. I'd like to see where that started. Or it could be true on a certain level once we include the equalizing judgment of God. Why were Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed? Because the children would be raised in such an environment that they would not have a chance to be raised up to the Lord. The odds were stacked too much against them. The powers of the devil are not miraculous as are the powers of the Lord. But they certainly are sneaky. His power is about convincing people that sin is righteousness. And unsuspecting people will be very tempted to give up their values for keeping food on their children's plates. Only by being aware can we have additional resistance to such temptations. Hopefully, it will be enough. But if we go about without a care in the world, then we will much more easily fall prey to the powers of the devil. What do you think the armor of God is? While most of the armor is passive, there are two things that are active: Faith & the Holy Ghost. These require that we are aware of the activities of the enemy. We can't go around relying on armor alone. The shield and the sword are still very important in winning the war.

If Boaz were the nearest kinsman, then there would have been no problem. But because he wasn't, there was a problem specifically because she was a widow under Mosaic Law. Sex/marriage with any man other than the near kinsman would have been considered adultery. Only after satisfying the chalitzah was she free from that condition. Then she could marry whomever she wished(*). *I have not read about how it was observed among ancient Israelites, if this allowed her to marry whomever she wished, or if that meant she was to ask the next near kinsman. But among Orthodox Jews today, it is considered adultery if they do not observe the chalitzah. Today, the chalitzah is the default. But they still observe it because they all know it is written in the Law of Moses. I don't know if they still do the spitting in the eyes. Once the observance is satisfied, she is free to marry anyone she wishes.

I just learned an interesting addition to the story of Ruth. Many people have theories about why the near kinsman rejected the marriage to Ruth. But all the ones I'd read were about his money being split or some such. But I just came across another theory. Moabites were specifically forbidden from worshipping with the Israelites. A curse was placed upon them up to the "10th generation" (interpreted as 10 generations from the marriage of a pure Moabite). So, the kinsman may have feared that his children would not be able to join in worship. And he'd have to marry another woman to have children to worship with. But if he had thought that (and I believe it would have been an understandable presumption) he was wrong. The curse was about the blood descendants of Moab (son of Lot). But as noted in Deuteronomy and Joshua, the Moabites were ejected from the land of Moab. Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh inhabited those lands. At the same time, when Ruth said, "Thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God," she indicated that the separation of these tribes from the body of Israel sent them on an apostate road. They had not kept the Law of Moses, and no longer worshipped Jehovah. So, it was very easy for a person removed from the history by a couple of generations to miss this detail. Yet, it seemed that Boaz was aware of this distinction. He wasn't worried about it. A theory. But we do know that Ruth's "Moabite-ness" didn't stop David (only three generations later) DID enter the temple. So, apparently, it wasn't actually an issue.