Carborendum

Most people reading the Book of Ruth tend to get hung up on the whole thing about Boaz's feet. What was up with that? What I was surprised by was how many people assume the worst and believe that Ruth was doing something untoward to Boaz. Even Matthew Henry seems to get this impression. But he relents and chooses to believe it only "seemed" that way. But it still shouldn't have been done. So, he splits the difference and blames Naomi for encouraging her. Still a LOT of commentators (both past centuries, and current ones) tend to believe it was a euphemism. Many of those pushing the unseemly narrative show their ignorance of the Hebrew language and of the customs of the people of that day. But most of the more modern ones tend to be less scholarly. The more scholarly sources seem to point out historical and cultural context that indicates that it was all above board. So, why should we care? She was human. She could sin and repent. Why bother clearing her name? Well, we certainly don't want to tarnish the reputation of someone who was deemed a virtuous woman, especially if we do so simply out of ignorance. We know that she was a woman who was touched by the Spirit. A convert to the religion of Israel, she left her homeland and all she knew to live by the commandments of a God she came to accept as her own. The Law of Moses required that her near kinsman take her to wife. And (as far as she knew at the time) that was Boaz. It was her actual RIGHT to demand that he marry her and care for her. But she didn't do that. And the way she went about it showed just how humbly she went about it. First, it was a custom for some trusted servants to sleep at or near the feet of their master (like a dog, one might say). So, when it says she was sleeping at his feet, she was really sleeping at his feet. And it was a sign of humility and submission. This was further amplified by uncovering his feet. This process has been called chalitzah. The shoe thing was part of Middle Eastern culture prior to the Law of Moses. It was a means of "sealing the deal." That's why it was added as part of the instruction for chalitzah. Nowadays it is the more common choice among Jews who have been widowed because of various practical reasons. I don't know how much they spit in each others' eyes anymore. Basically, Ruth was letting him know that she was aware of his duty under the law, but she was also saying that she was perfectly willing to accept chalitzah if he chose not to. She already began the process of rejection by uncovering his feet so it would be easier to take his shoe off. (Remember he was in the threshing room floor. One does not walk around that with bare feet). She did this to let him know that she was not embarassing him in public and forcing him into a marriage that he wouldn't want (there was a certain amount of shame when a man chose this and the woman did not). So, she just brought the choice to him in the least threatening way possible. That is what the feet thing was about. I'm not going to go into all the linguistic reasoning why the "euphemistic" interpretation would be stretching the imagination. But suffice it to say, it just wasn't so. As Boaz instructed Ruth to leave, he wanted her to remain stealthy so people didn't get the wrong idea. There was no "wrong idea" if they had actually done the deed. It is much more likely that nothing immoral occurred, and they both wanted to keep it that way. They also didn't want anyone else to think incorrectly. When Boaz spoke with the near kinsman in front of a crowd of witnesses, he took his shoe off of his foot to seal the deal that Boaz would marry Ruth and that the kinsman wanted nothing to do with her. EDIT: An interesting thing to note was that Ruth was in fact offering a proposal of marriage when she said And the "spread thy skirt" was actually a euphemism. But it was meant to be within a formal marriage. Further evidence that this was still chaste is If they had already done it, he wouldn't have to promise "I *will* do" emphasizing the fact that she is a VIRTUOUS WOMAN.

So, the basic problem with Saul was that he kept trying to usurp priestly authority. While he agreed that he was only King because the Lord annointed him as such, he tends to have this idea that being king gave him certain religious privileges. 1 Sam 13 -- Saul offers burnt offerings even though he is not a priest. 1 Sam 14 -- Saul randomly declares a fast for the entire army. This leads people to forget Koshering the food and feasting on non-Kosher foods. 1 Sam 15 -- After being told to kill every living thing, Saul decides to spare Agag and the choice animals "for sacrifice". Each time, he feels that he has authority simply because he feels like it. First, it's impatience. Second, to gain attention and tout his authority. Then because he feared the people. What kind of man can he be described as? He was a large and mighty man. He was an accomplished warrior. He was anointed as a king. Yet, he keeps wanting to do things to boost his image among the people? And this is not even megalomania (i.e. power corrupting him). It seems more like a completely ineffective leader who was thrust into the position of king. A strong man who gains power will use that power to force/encourage people to follow him (whether for good or evil). A weak man who gains power will use that power to boost his own image. A man of God who gains power will use his power to provide freedom and security for his people and encourage them to follow the Lord. This last test (kill everything) was not a light commandment. To give such a commandment to Saul meant that this was the last straw for the Amalekites. And, it appears, it was the last test for Saul. Verse 8 says "Saul" took Agag alive. Verse 9 says "Saul and the people" spared Agag and the choicest animals. Verse 15: Saul blames "the people" for sparing them. He continues this lie all the way until v.21. Then when Samuel calls his bluff, Saul tears Samuel's apron (I'm guessing it was his ephod). Again a fourth time, he did a sacred no-no. Priestly robes were not to be touched by non-priests. Finally: Even when sentence is pronounced upon him, even as he begs for forgiveness, he isn't sorry about failing in the eyes of the Lord. He's sorry for being weak in the eyes of the people.

.

Another... The Famines have already started. We're going to enter an era where it is not just one product or one type of food. Within the next 6 months we'll see: 1) Grocery chains going out of business. 2) Walmart will have entire aisles of bare shelves in the food section. At the sme time, all the first world shopping items will he overstocked. 3) Basic commodities, especially, will be out or very scarce. What we saw happen with baby formula will happen with milk, eggs, bread, fruits and vegetables, and meat. Seafood will probably disappear. Get your food storage NOW. Gasoline will follow. ** So, we have Disease, Famine. War??? Yes, Ukraine/Russia. But I feel like the end times conditions means all nations (practically speaking). And we're not there yet. Death??? Again, what type? People die all the time. I think we have yet to see masses of people dying for inexplicable reasons. So, what is that about anyway?

In this week's reading, we come across 1 Sam 8 wherein "The Samuel Principle" is shewn. We discover an awful lot of detail that is very interesting. Let's see if you can detect anything familiar. 1) It starts with the children of Israel saying that they don't think they can trust the Prophets, Priests, and Judges because "Hey, Samuel! Look at your sons! We'd rather have a king!" 2) Then Samuel goes to the Lord and the Lord immediately tells him: a) They haven't rejected you. They've rejected me (The Lord). b) Go ahead and give them a king. But with a king comes some rules and responsibilities. 3) The people don't like this idea, so they reject the rules for good government but want a king anyway. 4) Samuel goes to the Lord again, and the Lord says,"Hey, go ahead." (with an implied: "You'll be sorry.") First, the people think they have a valid complaint. Samuel's own sons were corrupt. The prophet, himself, appointed these boys to be judges! And they're this corrupt?!?! Obviously this entire system is broken. We want a different system. Hey, everyone else has a king. Why can't we just have a king? Everyone else is doing just fine. So, we'll be better of without God ruling over us. We'll let a man rule over us instead. (I don't see any problems with that. heh-heh). The Lord knows Samuel's sons are corrupt. But He still lets us know that the rejection wasn't ever about Samuel's sons. It was just an excuse. Their real motivation was that they didn't like this lifestyle anymore. They wanted to be like other nations. They wanted to reject the Lord while maintaining plausible deniability. Then the Lord outlines a very scant constitution for good government. He doesn't bother with the convention and a lengthy document because... the people reject that too and want to be just like all other nations. Imagine, you're the strongest most powerful nation in the world (as far as the know). They've won every military encounter based on miracles obviously wrought by God. But they're tired of it and want to be like other nations who do not have God behind them... Then we get a response from the Lord which brings to mind the phrase "Be careful what you ask for. You may get it."

I sometimes wonder if anyone really knows what "prepared for a mission" really means. And given conditions today (boy have my missionaries got some stories) I wonder if we know. But I suppose they don't yet have an experience like Ammonihah.

That's a pretty new car. It looks like you took the right steps. But I see a red flag: Your pump broke (you didn't say, but I'm guessing it overheated?). Then it overheated again when there was a coolant leak. Where was the leak? Was it just the gasket? or was the block cracked. That's the difference. If it is cracked, then yes, you have to replace it. If not, just do the gasket and save yourself some money. Apart from that, I don't see any other reason to replace the engine.

The only reason you'd need to change the engine out is if the engine itself is damaged in any way. If the only thing wrong is the gasket, just replace the gasket. Did they give you any description of what condition the engine itself is in? How old is the vehicle? How many miles? The damaged head gasket does not *automatically* mean you need a new engine block. Sometimes, if you've driven with a leaking gasket for a long time, it can damage parts of the engine. The longer you did so, the more likely the damage is irreversible. One thing you may want to consider is that when the gasket leaks, it can allow mixing of engine oil and coolant. That's not a good thing. So, you have to drain teh oil and the coolant and replace it with uncontaminated stuff. You may want to ask the repair shop if they have an easy way of telling whether either fluid is contaminated with the other. The fact that they wanted to jump straight to the engine replacement tells me that they may not be a reputable shop. But when they told you that the gasket replacement would be cheaper, that makes me think they might be ok. But did they only bring it up when you asked them about it? Or did they offer that to you on their own? EDIT: I just saw your post in the other thread. It seems like you got one guy there that was jumping to sell you a new engine. The other guy was offering the cheaper alternative. £1700 is a big difference. If you feel like they are trustworthy, just ask yourself if you can afford the £1700 (additional). If so, you get a new engine.* If you have an older vehicle, it could be worth it if the rest of the vehicle is in good shape. If you have a fairly new car, I'd consider what condition the engine itself is in. It may not require replacement. * Make sure they're talking about a completely new engine, not just a portion of it.

https://local12.com/news/nation-world/police-believe-fire-at-pro-life-building-was-targeted-arson-madison-wisconsin-sunday-fire-blaze-structure-chief-police-shon-barnes-family-action-abortion-pro-life-pro-choice-incident-cincinnati-ohio Here's one in Wisconsin -- about a month ago.

I haven't heard of others. But this "organization" had one center vandalized a while ago. And now they had this arson event. What were the others you heard about?

If you've seen what was happening to the market this past week, it's pretty clear that the stock market is in trouble. If the pattern holds, the low point for the DOW will be around 24,000 to 25,000. So, we have quite a ways to go. But just following the trend, we're looking at an overall downward trend until the fall at least. I was hoping that it may partially turn around during the later fall. But I don't think it will be significant.

https://first-image.org/2022/06/11/greshamcentersetonfire/ A pro-life pregnancy center was the victim of arson.

We all know that if someone is physically or mentally incapable of serving a mission, they are exempt from those requirements. Often times we find that they can serve a service mission instead of a proselyting mission. But are there other circumstances which would justify not going, or at least coming home early? Example: The missionary is a faithful young man who has studied his scriptures and has kept himself worthy to serve. There is no mental or physical impairment of any kind. In fact, he's quite capable of many things that should be useful on a mission. But he isn't very sociable. So, he doesn't know how to talk to people very easily. And when he does speak, he's quite prone to inadvertent negative comments. When it comes to the work, he really doesn't feel he knows what he is doing. He asks for help, but no one tells him anything that he can actually apply other than "pray about it." Then to top it all off, virtually the entire mission is full of missionaries who don't really want to serve a mission. But they're perfectly happy to take a 2-yr vacation from life. Discouragement abounds. I'm fairly certain that the prophet said that every worthy young man is to serve a faithful mission. If he's worthy, should he just tough it out when he feels like there's no point? I felt this way many times on my mission. But I only once thought about going home. And it quickly left. All the other times, I didn't really relish the idea of returning home either. It was bad on my mission, it was bad at home. What's the difference? But for others, they have a welcoming family. They may have a girlfriend who is waiting at home for them. They have a career lined up for them. They have a life where they can be productive. But on the mission, they feel like they're useless. They don't know how to do anything, and no one is willing to help them figure it out. I can think that Nephi didn't know what to do either. But he decided to be led by the Spirit. This could be the time to learn how. Easy to say. But I still feel sorry for that missionary who has to make that decision.

https://thehill.com/news/senate/3520521-mcconnell-touts-support-of-bipartisan-product-after-senate-gun-proposal-announced/ https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/12/politics/senate-gun-safety-agreement/index.html Apparently a gun control bill is about to pass Congress and the White House. Here are the highlights: Money being spent on mental health centers and resources (including suicide prevention). And funding for schools and mental health. Buyers under 21 have an enhanced background check. Resources for states to remove guns from people who have been adjudicated as a danger to themselves or others. NICS will include domestic abusers and those who have restraining orders on them. Closes loop holes on who is a federally licensed firearms dealer. There was apparently a loophole that some could act as a dealer regarding purchasing from a manufacturer, but they did not qualify when it came to selling them to the public. So, some people were able to buy without a background check. Cracks down on straw purchases. #1: I think most of us can get behind that one. #2: I think this is ok. But if it is applied in such a manner that it ends up being an outright ban on those between 18 - 21, it is just the camel's nose in the tent. #3 & #4: I support this in spirit. But I see the potential for over-reaching government to oppressively apply this. If one is mentally adjudicated as a danger to others simply because they want to buy a gun... And, yes, many on the left have declared this is their goal. No shame, no apologies, no exclusions, no conditions. If you want to own a gun, you should be declared mentally insane. As history has shown, what is fringe liberal today will be common liberal tomorrow. #5: I didn't really know much about this. Apparently it is a thing. I'm not convinced that the statistic from "Every town for gun safety" is accurate. But it is clear that it happens. And I'm all for having a background check for everyone. But what will this end up looking like? #6: I figured this happened on some level. I don't know how big a problem it is. But I fear that this will get many people arrested for simply wanting to make some money on the sale of a gun. So, my three rules? Let's see if it works? 1) Not a re-hash of laws already on the books? I'm not aware of any laws that cover these things already as far as gun safety. 2) Proven to reduce gun crime? I believe the mental health stuff is understood to be a big factor in gun crimes. But what percentage? And is it going to make a big enough dent? I don't know. But overall, it seems benign enough to give it a try. 3) Not an outright gun ban? We'll see if it ends up banning guns from a lot of people who should have a right to purchase and own a gun. Again, it sure seems benign enough. But I'm just not sure how it will be applied.

This was my conclusion as well. (I got a copy of the original manuscript too. Kinda cool, huh?) It's really nice to see the evolution of understanding of the words. They were on their way to standardizing spelling, thanks to Webster. The 1828 Dictionary was just recently published (-- uhmm... in 1828... in Kayse itt was n't Obviouse). Apparently there were centuries where only the first letter of a paragraph or book or chapter were capitalized. All other letters were lower case. It was some time after the Elizabethan period where people began using capital letters for all nouns. For example, you can't find much evidence in Shakespearean original folios where they used capital letters at all. After that period, it began to catch on. Here was something I found when researching for Sunday School a few months back. I wasn't able to find why it began around then. I'm going to guess it has something to do with Old English being a Germanic language. Modern German capitalizes all nouns. But I don't really know when the Germans (or Prussians) began the practice either.

Just picked up my kids from FSY. We also brought a couple of others home (car pool) and they had breakfast with us.

This is surprisingly fresh coming from you. It is a very insightful question. The answer comes from Explanation: To the ancient Jews (of which Nephi was one) the word attributed to "living" human beings referred to animated things (not vegetation, for example). And the fact that Adam and Eve were able to move around, they were living. But Nephi is trying to emphasize that such life has no meaning if there isn't an ability to do something meaningful (duh). If the only choices they can make are things that don't make a difference, they aren't really alive in the spiritual sense. So, they simply "exist" as a rock or a tree does. So, the fundamental difference between Christ's teachings and mainstream Christianity is that of choice. Christ taught that we can choose between Liberty and Eternal Life or captivity and death. The ultimate death is to have no choices at all (Hell). You're asking about an inherent ability vs the realization of that ability. I have the ability to play the piano. But if I can't find a piano, I can't actually play. In the case of Adam and Eve, they could have always chosen to disobey God. But they simply had no motivation to do so. It was only after Satan put certain thoughts into their hearts that they discovered a motivation to do so. You're misleading now. Just because something happened after does not mean it was a direct result of (causation vs correlation). The thing that made them "as gods" (see below) was the fact that they now had the ability to understand the nature of choice between good and evil. But they only began to understand it after having experienced a real choice between good and evil. What separates us from lower life forms? Are we any different than apes? Why? Think about it. The Church of Jesus Christ teaches that we were made "a little lower than angels" (Heb 2:9) and that He created man in His OWN IMAGE (Gen 1:27). So, we share characteristics of divinity. And one thing we share is our ability to choose between good and evil. Adam and Eve were as little children. Do children understand good and evil? Only on an extremely rudimentary level. But as we grow and become exposed to the differences, we begin to understand the real nature of good/evil and ability to choose between them. Whatever the forbidden fruit was (literal or figurative, doesn't matter) it represents our loss of innocence. It represents our very real choice between what we know and understand to be good and evil. Once Adam and Eve went through that process, they had real choices. And they chose the good over the bad the remainder of their days.

Another one? We know that the family has been and always will be in Satan's crosshairs. We know that wokeness is trying to downplay how wonderful all the good things in life are because not everyone has them. Further, they even encourage celebrating the not so wonderful things because we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings or shame them in any way. The obvious conclusion is that people will no longer believe that "family values" is a good thing. It is an oppressive thing. The BLM organization decided that one of their stated goals was the destruction of the nuclear family. PREDICTION: The media, Hollywood, politicians, and social media will become complicit in the cultural shift to shame people who want to have a fully intact family with a mother and a father. This is a no brainer. It has been happening since I was a child. It has only gotten stronger and more obvious with every passing year. But I can see the brazen, obvious, intentional destruction of the family coming up over the horizon.

As I was saying. He was a "moldable" god. He was whatever the people of the time wanted him to be. So, that's possible I suppose. But I'm unfamiliar with that variant. He was considered the son of El and Asherah. Both gods. So, Baal would have been a full god, not a demigod. Could you provide a source for that position? Again, source? Potato-tomato.

Only political blowback??? For a SCOTUS justice? How, exactly?

So, someone from California crossed state lines all the way across the country to Maryland to perpetrate this, while carrying a gun. And after all that, no one is using this to cry out for gun control. Gee, I wonder why.

Did our sweet, innocent Backroads actually say that?

OK. I've done it. I got into crypto. Just a small amount for now. I think they will be somewhat stable for the next quarter, but may still go down a bit. When higher inflation rates kick in, crypto will start to rise again. But I believe Bitcoin is not the thing to get into. I'm not offering financial advice. I'm just raising awareness for others to take a hard look at what is happening in the economy and determine a strategy for themselves. This is my method. Everyone needs to find a method that will work for them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/06/08/kavanaugh-threat-arrest-justice/ https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/08/politics/man-arrested-near-brett-kavanaugh-home/index.html Well, that happened.

Over the years, I've given this phrase: Many who fall away from the Gospel of Jesus Christ will do so because they've chosen the path of "creating God in their own image." This is what pretty much everyone does. It is the great sin of pride that allows us to believe that we believe in a God that suits our needs, rather than trying to change ourselves to meet what God requires of us. The Old Testament is replete with story after story of the children of Israel going off to worship Baal and Ashtaroth. Why was this so habitual? Simple. They thought there was something wrong with the Law of Moses. They didn't want to obey all the statutes. And they really didn't want to worship / love a god who would require such things of them. Why Baal and Ashtaroth? Because they were "moldable" gods. Baal for instance, was called a storm god, a sun god, a fertility god... the list goes on. And Ashtaroth and Asherah were sometimes considered the same being and other times two separate gods. They were whatever the people wanted them to be. You don't like people telling you what you're doing is wrong? Just make a god who tells you that you're ok just as you are. What the heck is a commandment anyway? One reason we find it easier to love God and hate our brother is that we can't deny who our brother is. We love not God, but our "image" of God. The graven image in our minds is nothing like the actual Being who created us. Instead, we create our own god. The task before us is to discover the Living God. He who exists. Jehovah. We do not create an image in our minds of what we believe he should be like to be "worthy of my worship". Even as we study scriptures, we see something that doesn't make sense, we say, "Oh that must be a mistranslation." Or "I can't believe in a god who does that." Once we find that the Lord has required or done something we disagree with, our impulse then is to think there was something wrong with HIM. Instead we're asked to be humbled by the knowledge that maybe we don't know what he's really like. Maybe we need to change OUR concept of good and evil. Maybe we just plain don't know the whole story -- and it was only under extreme circumstances where the wickedness of man forced His hand to do something that we consider "bad" to begin a new era of "good". Maybe we are only a worm. Maybe we should be declaring "Oh, wretched man that I am." Maybe we should stop wondering why He isn't behaving like a good little god.