Carborendum

It has to do with the Irish (or the Scottish, if I'm remembering wrong). The Irish had this tradition of 1. Shortening names. 2. Replacing a single letter just to make it different. 3. Make adjustments to make it sound cool 4. Add an "ee" sound at the end. So, William --> Will --> Bill --> Billy Likewise: Robert --> Rob --> Bob --> Bobby For Margaret, they figured a longer name deserves double duty Margaret --> Mag --> Meg --> Peg --> Peggy. Sarah --> Sar --> Sal --> Sally Remember the Irish think that "Siobhan" is supposed to be pronounced "Shuh-VAHN".

You need only look at @mirkwood's post above for the link. But of course, people who automatically (and without evidence) accuse Trumpsters of simply ignoring all the goings on at the Capital as "Fake News" are all ready to call the information in that link as fake news as well. FTR, I never said that the testimony thus far is fake news. I just haven't bothered to try figuring that out since I know the procedures are completely unjust, we can't be taken in by a partial picture of things.

From Sheryl Crow:

No, I had not. Prior to tis day, I had never even thought about where they may have been buried. It just never occurred to me. The information in Weber's work, contradicts the placards at the family plot. It may be that they simply have not yet been updated. But the family plots still mark the graves of the other members of the family. But Joseph and Hyrum are not so labeled. But the placard says that they are buried under that outbuilding that is pictured in Weber's paper. I also noticed Weber mentions the Scannel Daguerrotype. I thought that had been debunked. In fact, I thought all the images had been debunked. The controversy on page 4... I don't see how they could have mixed up the two skulls. Hyrum was shot in the face. That would have damaged the bones. It would have to have been broken to some degree because it was a fatal blow. Did no one notice? Back to the site. The placards talk about how they moved the bodies around to several places because they were afraid of enemies seeking to desecrate the bodies. I don't know about all the descriptions of exhuming and relocating, etc. that Weber describes. I just know what I saw currently at the site. And it only shows other people's names. Joseph and Hyrum don't have a placard. Only the placard at the front saying that they are still buried under that outbuilding. NOTE: the plot is currently owned & maintained by the Community of Christ (formerly the RLDS church).

Actually, that was one of the "holes" I was thinking about. Hearsay evidence is actually allowed in many jurisdictions provided that it is a person's first hand account of what they actually heard someone say. But in this case, we hear people saying second and third hand accounts. What's worse is that the individuals in the first-hand position went on record saying that the second hand account was inaccurate. But those individuals are not being allowed to testify. EDIT: I see you posted to that link. Again, they only allow one sided testimony. One of the classic characteristics of a kangaroo court. But the left simply doesn't see it. It is their MO. The right always welcomes more discussion, more speech. In the end the right will be vindicated by more speech than less speech. And if more speech is really allowed and the right is found to be wrong, so be it. We're wrong. But the left's go-to tactic is to shut down any narrative counter to their own positions. And we see that in technicolor display at these hearings. That is why I say, I don't really get invested in trying to figure out the truth from the evidence and testimony provided because it is specifically being presented in a way as to shut down conversation, not arrive at the truth. When you use that tactic, you're almost always wrong.

Good point. Always. I believe I've "heard of" prophecies to to contrary. (i.e. I've heard that the Church will stop growing at some point). It may seem that way. But it may be a case of Elisha's army. At least, we can hope so. On this one, I KNOW I've read prophecies that this will happen. Non-members who openly want nothing to do with our faith will want the security that the Church can provide. And we will welcome them under our protection (separate and equal as far as political/social power).

.

You're right. That was a nuance I missed. Interesting how it is worded, though. It leads one to believe it. But it doesn't actually say it. Very interesting. For the record, I've never really had a problem with name changes. They really are a social construct. I've heard so many names which are masculine in one language/culture, but are feminine in another, and vice versa. But the pronoun thing... Yes...

So, my family just spent a week at Nauvoo. The weather has been really pleasant. Interesting changes. Apparently, the Church recognized that with as many years as the historic reconstruction has been in existence, many urban myths about Nauvoo had crept into the narrative. So, a concerted effort was made to consult historians and search through first-hand accounts to verify every story that was told about the various sites & individuals throughout Nauvoo. One thing that disappointed the kids was that they no longer handed out the rings made from horseshoe nails. Apparently the story behind it was a myth. They also cut down the presentation for John Browning's shop. I remember it being much longer. But they took out what they couldn't verify from first-hand accounts. I found many of the presenters in all areas of Nauvoo were very happy to simply say "we don't know." The Carthage visit also changed. And I actually found the new tour to be more meaningful. Someone had asked whether Joseph died and then fell, or if he lept and was shot on the way down or if he died from the fall, or if he died from being shot afterward. They were happy to say they didn't know. I pointed out that we know that he was alive as he left the window because first hand accounts say he cried out "O, Lord, my God!" In that two or three second interval between leaping and death, how is anyone supposed to know whether the fall or the many bullets killed him, much less the bullets before or after the fall. We did baptisms in the temple and I noticed these marble pilasters in the assembly hall. I asked if the original temple had marble pilasters as well. I was told that they did. The next day we did endowments. When in the Celestial Room, I was admiring the workmanship of the marble. But I noticed something strange about it. It wasn't marble! It was painted "something". It could be wood or paper for all I knew. It wasn't stone or metal. But it was covered in paint. But I considered something. The paint job was perfect. The marbling pattern in and out of the flutes was exactly how it would be in real marble. It was expertly done. When waiting in the chapel, the officiator came to me and asked if we could be the witness couple. But he pointed to me and my daughter. All three of us had an amused, yet, quizzical look. He thought I was young enough to be married to my daughter. Or he thought my daughter was old enough to be married to me. Anyway, I pointed out that I was holding hands with my wife who was seated to my right. My wife pointed out that it was probably because I was laughing (quietly) at my daughter pointing out the amusing phrasing of Abraham 1:1. There was a fun song that was played in those days called "A Gallant Ship Is Under Way". I had to ask if anyone else noticed the similarities with "Old MacDonald". None of my family noticed. But when I asked the musicians, they hummed a few bars and realized I was right. I never knew that the Nauvoo Brass band was employed in what we today might call panhandling during the trek west. The Brass Band was one means of income/food as they traveled through cities and towns along the way. Pioneer Pass-times was as annoying as ever. We visited the gravesites of the Smith Family. Joseph and Hyrum's bodies were moved several places prior to their final resting place. And the current lot is under a small building. So, highly unlikely that they will be exhumed. As we went by the renamed "Trail of Hope" and read the placards taken from the journals of individuals who walked it, I realized that these stories are OUR stories. I have no pioneer ancestry. My wife does. But it isn't about our families. It is about our faith. People died and suffered to hallow the ground and hallow our dispensation to allow us to have the blessings of this dispensation. Also, because we've been studying the Old Testament this year, I noticed the parallels between Joseph and Moses, Brigham and Joshua, the Ancient Israelites and the pioneer generation. The River Jordan was the Mississippi. Utah is Israel. I would wonder who will be the "judges"? Who will be "Samuel"? Where will we raise our Ebenezer?

Yet another person who weighs in without reading the commentary.

I really have no idea how much of what we're seeing is true or false. But I tend to look at the bigger picture of the so-called trial. All witnesses and inquiries are one-sided. No effort is being made to: Call opposing witnesses. Allow for cross-examination of the witnesses. Defend / listen to those languishing in solitary confinement for nearly a year and a half. Even if 100% of what you're hearing so far is true, do you honestly believe that you're getting the whole picture with such a kangaroo court? (I mean that by its technical definition, not the connotative meaning). If you haven't even noticed any gaping holes in the witnesses' testimonies that would have been brought up during cross-ex, then you are oblivious to your own bias.

I actually have had a different experience in this regard. I've found that adults don't retain much from the lessons. But they remember the feelings. Youth remember the lesson material, but quickly forget the feelings except for those who write in their journals. And youth will tend to understand a lot more than we think they do. Just my personal experience.

Thank you. This may surprise some, but I believe that many will be surprised at just what our "core values" consist of. There has already been what conservatives would call "significant accommodations" for trans people (e.g. the Handbook says that we can address people by their pronouns). Is this "giving in" or "compromising values?" Or is it that pronouns really aren't that important? So, as we try to follow the prophet, we need to remember that some things we thought were important... really aren't. That was why my OP was not about pronouns at all. Exactly. You get it. Thank you. My OP was not about pronouns. That happened to be the triggering mechanism. But it could just as easily been anything else.

Sounds promising. I'll look into it further.

I'll address your "confused" reaction. I agree that pronouns aren't going to have a damning effect upon us. I did NOT say that pronoun usage is the mark of the beast. Never said a word about pronouns in the OP. Think about what I actually did warn against. But I understand if most will not perceive my message. I finally get it. I'm almost amused by this realization. But it's so obvious why my actual words are not understood. And the focus is being drawn to something I did not point to. BTW, my pronoun is "Emperor of the Known Universe" , but you can call me Usul.

Well, we'll see how this develops in 20 to 30 years.

It begins... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/halifax-bank-gender-pronoun-badges-staff-accounts-b2112643.html It is insidious that banks are now so powerful that they can scoff at customers and dare them to close their accounts if they disagree with their "values". No, "sorry to see you go." Just "go ahead and see if we care." This is just be beginning. It may take a couple decades to get to the level that Revelation tells us about. But it is beginning now. This starts with one bank outside of the US. But it will flow to other banks. And if the central banks get on board, we will not have an alternative. We will not be able to choose another bank. So, what? Why care about what they put on their name tags? As I said, it is just the beginning. This will grow to become a draconian measure in some way. I don't know yet how. But it will turn into some level of forced acceptance of the perversion of man and woman. Simply by storing our money in a woke bank, we are funding the efforts of the adversary. How careful we must be to understand the extent of serving two masters. Can we cleave to the Lord while still caring about our money and financial well being? For now, we have a choice to both care for the earthly well-being of our families and serving the Lord. At some point, we will not be able to so choose. Does anyone see the purpose of the $100B now? I hope it will grow to $1Trillion+ by the time this gets that bad. No one else will have the financial resources, the connections, the following, and the trust of the people as the Church does (and hopefully will continue to in the future).

@Just_A_Guy's explanation was pretty good. Beyond that, I'm perplexed by your response. It appears as if you completely missed my entire post except for one phrase which you directly asked about. And you're absolutely right about what you posted. But you asked what you were missing. I answered that question. Then you proceeded to repeat what you knew and skipped over all the stuff that you were missing. So, if you don't want to hear what you're missing, I'm left wondering why exactly did you ask the question in the first place? Let me summarize to excuse you from having to read the entire post (although you may find it informative): 1973: Pro-choice = allow abortions in the case of rape, incest, or health of the mother. THIS WAS the Church's position in 1973. Pro-life = outlaw all abortions except in the most extreme danger to the life of the mother. 2022: Pro-choice = allow/encourage ANY AND ALL abortions upto a second before the baby takes its first breath. No exceptions. Pro-life = Allow in cases of rape/incest/threat to life of the mother. And/or severely limit to very early stage pregnancies. This is close to the Church's position today

For the most part, no, you're not missing anything. But there are a few historical aspects that you are probably missing. WHAT LIBERALS ARE MISSING: When abortion became a debatable topic (i.e. enough people on both sides of the aisle that there was reasonable cause to have public debates about it) the meaning of pro-choice/pro-abortion was to allow for those few exceptions. Prior to that, abortion was almost never legal. Over time, public sentiment changed such that most conservatives are the ones saying that it should be legal in those special circumstances. At the same time and liberals were asking for taxpayer funded abortions upto and including partial-birth abortion. People didn't take notice of the change in the conditions/definitions. They merely carried on with the party they were raised in. WHAT CONSERVATIVES ARE MISSING: The Church's position on abortion and the meaning of abortion is not what most believe it is. They don't realize that (by the description above) the Church was quite liberal in the 60s and 70s since its official position was "Pro-Choice". But to paraphrase Reagan (my position didn't change, the pro-choice movement changed). Per President McKay, we don't know when the spirit enters the body. No prophetic word has defined that. So, theologically, we don't know when the embryo/fetus is "alive" (as defined by when the spirit enters the body). We do know by John the Baptist that it happens long before birth. But that is all we know. So, we don't know if it is "murder". He also noted that since we have no prophetic word that it is "listed" as one of the unforgivable sins, then it "probably" is forgivable. Again, a lot of unknowns here. So, are we "killing" a physical body that may or may not have a spirit? We don't have much in the way of prophetic guidance. The word we have been given is that it is still destroying a temple of God and (at the very least) destroying a "potential" life. What we do know is that the Church has supported those few exceptions. And that whether murder or not, (again Per Pres. McKay) it is still considered one of the most grievous sins of this generation. Under what conditions would we justifiably "destroy a temple of God"?

True I'm a huge fan of Billy Joel's work. But I've become disappointed in him personally. He flat out admitted that he really doesn't have a love for music. He's only in the business to bed women. He achieved every teen boy's dream when he married Christie Brinkley, then disappointed everyone when they he divorced because the most beautiful woman in the world just wasn't enough for him. Later in fife he got heavy into drugs and he's now looking at a lonely retirement where he doesn't even have much of a relationship with his daughter (although things are still positive, the relationship isn't really there). And who knows how many others he has fathered? But he gets to pal around with Elton John (who helped him through the drug phase). Meanwhile Christie carries on a close relationship with her two daughters. She's become the "model" of how to age gracefully. At 65 she did a runway show and also graced the cover of Sports Illustrated with both daughters.

Nope. The police specifically pointed that out. No one was even arrested. Their only desire was to disperse the protesters.

This was the description from the police department. And I'm inclined to believe it. It was the same with Jan 6th. My neighbor was there on Jan 6th. She said that it was supposed to be very standard as protests go. March around. Hold signs. Shout trite sayings... But she saw some people doing weird things. Many people noticed it. She decided to get herself out of there. Good thing too. She might be rotting in a gulag right now as well. Unfortunately, the idea of third party agitators never crossed their minds. They just figured it was some extremist group that was still supporting what the same cause. But with the benefit of hindsight, it was most certainly the third party agitators. I get the impression that it was a similar situation here. The only difference was who was doing the banging on doors and windows. In DC, the ones banging on doors and windows didn't start until after the police already let them into the building. And only a few were tearing things down. In Arizona, a few started banging on the locked doors without police opening anything up. Then everyone in the protest joined in. They all began trying to break the glass. Then the police launched the tear gas. In DC, common protesters were arrested. The agitators were let go. In Arizona, no one was arrested. Does anyone else see a problem with this?

I've heard of this in variant forms, primarily about plain old-fashioned homosexuality specifically. Since then, I've spent some time thinking about it. And there may be a logic to it. But when we bring in the Plan of Salvation into it, the picture changes quite a bit. Scientifically, naturally, according to man's understanding: It is possible that nature has some mechanism that says that the available elements, nutrients, resources, etc. can only successfully sustain evolutionary natural selection trends to a certain point. After that point, some nutrient deficiency will trigger a trend of increased non-heterosexual behavior. Perhaps, a look at all the nutrients required for human biology have a limiting element that specifically effects heterosexual tendencies. It's within the realm of reasonableness. Counterpoint: If we believe only in man's science as described above, then it stands to reason that non-heterosexual individuals are specifically NOT supposed to reproduce. They are specifically NOT supposed to raise/rear children. Nature itself is demanding that this be the case. So, why would we allow these individuals to propagate the species? Their argument completely falls apart on their own terms. Yet, trans men are being placed in jail cells with biological women and impregnating them. Gay couples are being allowed to adopt and use surrogates to make babies just so they can be raised by homosexual couples? Consider the Plan of Salvation: The Lord has told us: Multiply & replenish the earth. There is enough and to spare. If these are both true, then the theory should not be used to justify non-heterosexual behavior. Either way, homosexual propagation, raising, or rearing is not justified.

There was. I can't find it anymore. Thanks, Twitter (I'm guessing). The "uniforms" were a group of people all clad in black with masks -- like you'd see from ANTIFA, but you could see by their mannerisms that they were not ANTIFA. They were something else. The weapons were the wood posts that some were using to carry signs that were then used to try to break the glass on the buildings. That was the point where they shot the tear gas at the protesters. And there was video of the palm tree outside smoking. But it isn't clear if that was from the police or the protesters. From the police website: So, just like Jan 6, the majority were protesting peacefully. But there were agitators. And I believe it was those agitators I saw in black.

It was a comet that had not been discovered at the time of the transmission. https://phys.org/news/2017-06-wow-mystery-space.html This was apparently disputed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow!_signal I have no idea why they cited the second source (New Scientist) as discrediting the comet theory, when it clearly supports it. The other two make some good arguments. But they are no stronger than the arguments made by Antonio Paris. And the biggest problems they have with the comet idea can be explained by the fact that two of them were in the vicinity at the time and there was some interaction.