Carborendum

While I would agree that 100% definitely must be hyperbole or at least a rounded off estimate, I don't know how ridiculous it is. I mean "I DON'T KNOW." I've never been able to find statistics on how many are controlled/affected by the cartels. I haven't found any consistent stats on how many are committing felonies when they get here. I haven't found much of anything. How are we to make any kind of judgment on an issue when we really don't even know the facts? If you have the facts that are "not significantly disputed per partisan ideology" I'd welcome reading them.

I always try to encourage my children to be outspoken in any environment. The only exception I make is to be reverent during certain religious settings. And I even ask that they extend that reverence while observing other people during their religious settings. I have apparently been too good at this teaching. They are IMNSHO a bit too outspoken -- especially to me. ...ahem...

I'm not sure if you even saw my post. So, I'm going to try again. Not because I "need" to be heard. But because I think you are troubled by it and I'm trying to help. The term you're looking for is FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out). Look it up.

This is the most troubling for me. Not because he's Mormon. Not because he was supposed to vote along party lines. It is troubling because he had previously voted against her because she was NOT qualified for even a lower role. What exactly has she done since then that somehow made her qualified for an even higher role? I'm asking because I don't know. Nothing came up during the Committee inquiry. What was brought up about her qualifications that would indicate that? I never heard anything, even from the Democrats that told me "Oh, yeah. She's definitely qualified from a professional, judicial, experiential, social, moral perspective to be part of the highest court of the land." The one thing that stood out was her FEAR of defining what a woman is. Think about it. She was AFRAID of defining a simple word -- which is an absolute requirement for a judge at ANY level. Interpretation of words and their meanings is as necessary as knowing what mathematical symbols mean to a mathematician. She was AFRAID of an aspect of her job because of the potential political blowback. That was unacceptable -- especially in the face of the fact that she was specifically nominated because she was a black woman.

The Greek doesn't change the ambiguity. The preposition "among" has the same ambiguous meaning in Greek as it does in English -- especially phrased like this. It really could go either way. For my part, I don't see why anyone would take the time to say that "among the apostles, these apostles are held in high esteem." Wouldn't any apostle be held in high esteem? It's a bit like saying "Jesus was the best Christ we've ever had in the history of the world." Uhm. Yes, I suppose that would be true. But what would be the purpose of saying water is wet? I don't see why it would be said in a formal letter by way of introduction. If it truly is ambiguous to some people, ambiguity like this is exactly why we need prophets.

I've heard a lot of disparaging comments about "Utah Mormons". I never noticed a difference... probably because I never paid much attention. To me, it doesn't really matter if you're BIC or out, in Utah or not. We all need to be converted to the Gospel of Jesus Christ at some point in our lives. If we're born in it and we are finally converted long after 8 years old, sobeit. The fact that we're truly converted in our hearts is what matters.

This past Sunday, we had a priesthood lesson on the Iron Rod. They tended to focus on the terms "clinging" (1Ne 8:24) vs the phrase "hold fast" (1Ne 8:30 & 1Ne 15:24). It is common to think of these two as synonymous. The 1828 dictionary equates the two terms. Various Bible translations translate the same Hebrew word to mean either one in various citations. But Elder Bednar sees them as different. See the article for his reasoning. An etymological search reveals that the term "cling" means to cluster together as if being funneled into a narrow gorge. That gives quite a different picture. I found this to be something of an anomaly. Just as the terms "transgression" and "sin" are mingled, Elder Oaks indicated that "for the doctrine of the Fall" we see a differentiation in the terms. Likewise, the words here (that are usually similar) seem to have some significance in their differences for this passage. It is interesting to note that in Ch 8, Nephi uses different terms. Then he specifically keeps the same usage of "hold fast" in Ch 15. To explain this I'm going to use different synonyms: "Join" vs "bind/seal/weld". Join: We are all well aware that when we commonly find these "burrs" hanging or "clinging" off of our clothing. It has joined itself to our clothing. But it is not a "part of" our clothing. It remains "apart". Seal: When something is sealed, there is no differentiation between constituent parts. They are all part of one great whole. People may "join" the Church, but never really be a part of it. There is no unity of heart, mind, and soul. They haven't "bought into the faith." They have are closely associated with it in their social lives. But their hearts are off on their own. To seal ourselves to God's Kingdom on Earth is a different story. It is difficult to accept. It can even be terrifying. It even sounds like joining a cult. But it is absolutely necessary to our Eternal Destiny. Time to cite C.S. Lewis. How do we know if we're joining a cult, or if we're giving ourselves to God? There is no logic or scientific way of discerning the difference. The only way is the Holy Ghost. Part of life's test is to see if we can truly attune ourselves to His promptings. I'm not sure what the actual dividing line is. But may we all be on the right side of it.

It fulfilled it exactly as it was supposed to to the extent it was supposed to. Your assumption is that since "those in power" failed to recognize the Savior as the Messiah, then the entire system failed. Not so. The earth had to be wicked enough to crucify the one perfect person on the earth. That isn't going to happen if the vast majority of the population are true and faithful. The Law only needed to provide for a sufficient number of people to carry on the message / doctrine / faith in the Atonement of Jesus Christ. And it did. Just look at the legacy today -- even surviving through the dark ages. Today, we have The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which is God's Kingdom on Earth. It is designed to prepare the earth for the Second Coming. But what percentage of the earth's population is LDS? And as time goes on, it will be even less than currently. But it is succeeding by the principle of "salt of the earth". At some point the earth will be so wicked that it will need a "cleansing". That doesn't really sound like the vast majority of the earth will be righteous, much less baptized, endowed, sealed Saints.

@romans8 At first, I just shrugged this off as yet another attempt at your usual trollery. But I remembered that I had actually pondered this a long time ago. I also have an answer for this. But because of your past trollery, I must conclude that you're not really interested in receiving an answer. So, why would I share it with you? You're just poking a sleeping dog to see if it will bark. *bark* Try showing more respect for our faith and then we can have a real conversation. You have two options. 1. Take time to ponder and ask YOURSELF AND THE LORD "how can I change my thinking and perspective such that I can understand how this can be true?" 2. Let's see what nooks and crannies I can dig into until I can find what I hope to be the Achilles Heel of Mormonism to prove just how foolish it is. The first shows respect. The second is trolling. Yes. YOU DO NOT SEE.

I believe I'm older than you. I've reached that point in my professional life. But I haven't quite reached that point in my social life. I guess, the real reason is just how confident we are. Professionally, I'm highly confident. It would take a lot to discourage me in my profession. But socially, I'm a the equivalent of a mentally handicapped person. So, I guess you are very socially confident. I'm happy that you've reached that stage in your life. May your light continue to shine.

As with any significant global event, things are always more complex than any one explanation.

Here's what I've heard, but I haven't taken the time to verify. Two opinions: 1) Of all the versions available, the King James version is the most accurate and complete. 2) Most of the versions today pretty much preserve the language of the Tyndale Bible. A lot of sacrifices were made to bring us the KJV. So, it was more-or-less Joseph's preference because he considered the language of the KJV to be sacred. I rather like #2 better. But I'm afraid that may be short lived. The whole reason why we needed a Bible in English is so that a "poor farm boy" would have access to its actual words. Today, a "poor farm boy's language skills" are very common. But the difference is that today's kids are not raised reading this Bible anymore. So, they read, but cannot understand. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2005/03/what-had-to-happen?lang=eng At some point, we're going to need a more plain-language / modern language version. And that may be the death of Christianity (as we know it). While we can try to modernize the language somewhat, I believe we can't sufficiently dumb-down the language enough for the average person in America to read and understand while sufficiently preserving the literary mechanisms of the Bible as we know it. But I am guessing people will still try. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2007/04/the-miracle-of-the-holy-bible?lang=eng My preference would be to keep the KJV and offer as many study guides and aides as possible. This is the route the Church has taken since I've been alive. I hope they don't change course.

Well, yes...

Just to clarify for other readers -- Fun facts: The 13,000 number is based on how many are large enough to be felt within the region of the epicenter. Sufficient to worry about endangering lives and property is much less (around 2,000 per year). And the number of ANY level of earthquake that can be detected by today's seismic instruments is over 1 million. Again, some clarification: The organisms are usually trapped in sedimentary rock. Then that organic matter is "cooked" by metamorphic action (usually tectonic activity). But that has already happened millions of years ago. Since then, the oil reservoirs could have moved into wide variety of geologic conditions today. That's part of it. But there's more to it than that. The high pressure is also used to crack rock. The following links provide a wide variety of conclusions about the environmental impact. But all of them agree on what fracking actually is. https://www.vox.com/2014/4/14/18076690/fracking https://www.power-technology.com/features/what-is-fracking/ https://www.ipaa.org/fracking/ https://www.nrdc.org/stories/fracking-101 I disagree. There are several different things going on in the activity. And some of them have the ability to set off a fault. However, the "releases" tend to be much milder than the big earthquakes we hear about. And it may very well be (the jury's still out) that the small releases could prevent larger earthquakes in the future. But this is only in areas of high seismic activity to begin with (like California). In areas of low activity (like Texas) it is just the shaking of the earth by a very different mechanism than actual seismic activity. And it would rarely do any real damage to property. I'm sure you'd agree that the entire green movement is not about the environment at all, but about government control over private corporations. While it has done some good in creating a cleaner environment with some very common sense type measures, the continued push is going beyond reasonable levels of government intervention and public hysteria. It does appear to be a little bit like robbing Peter to pay Paul, or a shell game. But the underlying financial mechanisms are more about psychology than math. And when we consider that mechanism, it means that the dollar is artificially held up as the world's most stable currency. If it weren't for the petrodollar, we might have to do such unreasonable things as (gasp) balance our budget.

I dug him up. https://twitter.com/AndrejNkv He's a True Scotsman. (TM)

I'm suddenly rooting for the Russians.

A lot of stuff you said was correct. I'd like to correct a few things that are either wrong or partially wrong. Fracking can actually cause earthquakes -- in California. In Texas, it has been known to cause "earth movements" that are noticeable by neighboring parties. But by the geological definition an earthquake, in Texas, that simply doesn't happen. Fracking can theoretically soil the water table. But there are regulations about what substances they can use in areas "close to" an aquifer. I'm not sure of the details in that area. But there are safeguards. "May". "Renewable". Words mean something. 1) We really don't know how much oil we have. The mechanism of "renewal" is that the earth is like a sponge. We drain one portion of the sponge, and over time, the oil from other areas of the sponge permeate the recently voided space in the strata. (omitting a longer-winded explanation of how this happens). 2) There is some finite limit. But some theorize that the true untapped resources may be so massive that ... "there is enough and to spare." But it only leaks out in economical quantities over time. 3) If it is truly renewable, I could theorize how that could be (it very well may be). But I'm not aware of someone who actually knows what they're talking about who has discovered such a mechanism in action. I'm not sure either. I never said that. Here's what I said. That has to do with the "petrodollar". Look it up. And, I don't know anything about the semiconductor industry. So, I'll take your word for it.

Expertly done! Who is this guy? I'm not sure I buy that he is a native Ukrainian. I find it difficult to believe someone did this whose first language is not English. BTW, is it true that the Russians are missing a significantly high percentage of the time? I hadn't heard.

Both Democrats and Republicans have a keen interest in selling US oil abroad and purchasing foreign oil for domestic use. The only reason the current administration is making it difficult for domestic oil producers is NOT because of the environment. It is because they want to strengthen the dollar abroad.

You hit the nail right on the head. I don't really understand this accusation of "Price Gouging" in the context of the oil industry (or most commerce for that matter). If they gouged today, that is because of greed. But the lower prices yesterday was also because of greed? While all commerce can be subject to isolated incidents of price gouging, it simply cannot be sustained on a large scale in the long term. That's why we have competition in the market. We open up the market as much as we can to encourage as much fair competition as possible. This results in the "fair market value" of any good or service. The only way this mechanism does not work over the long term is that it is not allowed to -- 99% of the time due to government intervention. They make things "difficult" for big oil, while at the same time putting the little guy out of business. Thereby ensuring that there is LESS competition, and price gouging is more likely. Bottom line: If we want to avoid price gouging, encourage more free competition. Oil companies (as a percentage) don't really make much money. It is only because the world consumes SO MUCH oil that the small percentage is quite a bit of total money. So, that 50 cent increase in gas prices we've been seeing amounts to less than 1 cent of additional profit for the oil companies. There is a "happy medium" where oil companies make the most money. A few years ago, it was around $80 to $90 / barrel (Brent). It was usually trading around $50 to $60 / barrel. But as prices went above $100, it was not really "rolling in it". Such tremendous profits are very short lived. Prices go up, but producers have to ramp up. That means adding more equipment. Equipment costs money... yes, COSTS MONEY. So the profitability is not as high as you'd expect. Then immediately after all the equipment is bought and paid for, the price goes down again, and the equipment is basically idle.

Forgive me for continuing to hash this topic. But it seems I've developed a bit of a fixation with it. I was thinking of the Egyptian symbol of the crook and the flail. To Egyptians, both of these items represented the power of Pharaoh / the gods. But the interesting thing about both symbols (often paired) is that they have dual purposes. Either one is used as a weapon or as a kind provider. The crook symbolized the "shepherd" aspect of the Pharaoh. The flail was an agricultural device for threshing wheat. The "provider" aspect. Thus we have the duality of the iron rod. Biblical references indicate it is a weapon, to show the power of the Lord. The BoM references indicate it is a tool of a "loving provider." I remember a particular famous commentator stating that a real leader is one who watches over his flock, but can definitely be a %*$&# if you need need him to be. And he'd better be able to because part of protecting is also beating the crud out of your enemies (my words, not his). I know that in the latter half of the 20th century, it became distasteful for us to think of the Lord as a punisher of the wicked. We tend to focus on the gentler side. But it is important to know that God has power. And power can be both gentle and terrible. Today's morality is to be gentle to the willfully rebellious, and be terrible to those who want to hold to the rod. The exact opposite of the Lord's way. I have this philosophy: The aspect we see is based on our own attitude. It isn't really about the sin (with a few exceptions). It is about repentance. I may sin quite a bit. But as long as I keep repenting, I tend to see the gentle side of the Lord. If I ever decide that I don't need to repent, or consider that a sin isn't really a sin, then I will see the terrible side.

Of course. Please take the time to look at this documentary.

I am having difficulty believing Biden will make it to the end of the 4 year term. But miracles do happen. As far as the nomination to replace Bryer... I had read an article which is now impossible to find (interesting Google filters there). I'm hoping someone else may have better access. The article said that Senate leaders brokered a deal that no Justice would be voted on by the body of the Senate until the Judiciary Committee gave bi-partisan support for the nominee. That means that as long as all the Republicans on the committee vote no, the nominee will NOT be put up for a vote before the body of the Senate. Does anyone else remember that? Anyone else see that? Maybe I'm remembering it wrong. But if it is true, that means that they're stuck with this condition until the next mid-term (when they get a chance to revise the rules). That's how I understood it anyway. All thanks to Mitch McConnell.

The thing was that I saw a recent photo of Putin as he talked about oil and natural gas. I noticed that, in that photo, he looked remarkably like another individual who was (up until recently) in the news here and there. But after I made the post, I thought better of it, and realized it would seem like I was being overly cruel to the other party (which was not my intent). I just thought they looked a lot alike in their photos.

What the???