Carborendum

You may be familiar with the story about the seashore covered in starfish. But I have a question about a variant. Standard story: Because of unusual ocean activity, countless starfish have been stranded on the shore. The waters have receded. And their limitations prevent them from finding the water again. The storyteller notices a woman picking up a starfish and throwing it into the ocean. She walks a little farther and picks up another, throwing it in the ocean. After several cycles of this, the storyteller asks the woman, "Why do you even bother doing this when there are so many? How can you hope to make a difference?" The woman replies by picking up another starfish and returning it to its ocean home and says,"It made a difference to that starfish." Variant: The storyteller then decides to help. He goes up to a starfish with the intention of helping more starfish. As he goes to pick one up, the woman grabs it first and throws it in the ocean. This repeats a couple of times before the storyteller decides that he needs to cover a different area because he didn't want to get in the woman's way. In a different area, he goes to pick up a starfish. It gets picked up by a sudden ocean wave. The starfish is gone. He thinks to himself, "OK. I guess that works." He goes to pick another area unaffected by the sudden wave. A bird picks it up and realizing it is not its normal diet, drops it into the sea. "Well, you don't see that every day." He continues and finds that each time he does so, some unpredictable event prevents him from picking it up, yet the starfish is still saved. Then he does an experiment. He walks away from the sea. He watches the starfish. Each and every one of them gets taken out to the sea by some highly unusual way. Was the woman at the beginning making a difference? 2nd Variant: As he watches from a distance he sees no more miraculous saves. So, he goes back to work trying to save the starfish. As he does so, more miraculous saves prevent him from actually being effective. But when he goes to sit on the sidelines again, the miracles cease yet again. This continues for several cycles. Would it be fair to say that even when he, himself, does nothing to save the starfish directly, that by simply trying (and absolutely not succeeding) he is still making a difference?

The thing is that it this is exactly what I've heard from some individuals, some of them on this forum. They think they can go to hell for every sin under the sun. And they can handle any punishment. But as long as it ends, they'll "get away with it."

I believe it an error to say that D&C 19 implies that there will actually be some termination point of the suffering. The thing to ask about "endless torment" is: If there had been no Atonement of Christ, what would have been the punishment? Paul tells us that the wages of sin is "death." But we understand that to mean "spiritual death." And spiritual death means being completely separated from God. The word death/dead Indicates a finality from which we cannot recover. Also means "absolute" (as in "dead ringer" or "dead on," etc.). Thus, we experience an absolute separation from God from which we cannot recover. Endless/Eternal means both timeframe AND intensity. If endless punishment is God's punishment, would that not also include it actually having an endless timeframe?

Which one?

Both of these scepters were symbols of Pharaoh's power. But each of them were duplex symbols. Used to smite those who opposed him. Used to care for those he ruled The crook was also a shepherd's crook to draw lost sheep to himself. The flail was also used for threshing wheat to feed his people.

Just a funny aside. My brain did an inexcusable cross-reference. "pedo" is the Spanish word for breaking wind.

The fact is that this generation has lost all concept of what "intellectual inquiry" is. It's not just gospel knowledge. It is everything. People are swayed with every wind of doctrine. When you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything. I was kind of proud of a few of the youth in my ward. A couple of years ago, I was teaching the Sunday School class for the 15-16 year-olds in the ward. I was encouraged to find that half of them were very conversant in gospel principles and knowledge of the scriptures. The other half were a conglomeration of shy and I don't know. And that's ok. Then the very next year, I talk with the kids just one class lower, and I'm flabbergasted with how little they know. I feel like we're going to be in a world of hurt with the rising generation that doesn't know anything. As far as adults... I currently teach the adult class. There are some of the older folks that are very knowledgeable. The conversation is quite lively. Just two younger adults (the only two young adults) that were contributing to the conversation. I just realized we have several other young adults that don't come to my class. I'll have to get on them.

Since you asked, I'm going to walk you through it. Mik: You said that you were really bothered when Lindsley said that the photos of the senator "surely looks like Joseph." You even went so far as to say "no freaking way." Carb: I pointed out that you really didn't pay attention to what he said. I was trying to draw attention to the fact that Lindsley said that phrase sarcastically. He was implying that many others thought that, but not him. He was trying to convey how easy (and how erroneous) it is to take pretty much any photo from that era and decide that it looks like Joseph. Mik: You asked for scientific data. I didn't talk about the scientific data. I was pointing to the fact that you went into it with your mind so biased, that even that sarcastic statement was accepted as his real opinion. Granted, the difference in his tone was very subtle since he seems to be a pretty laid back guy. But if you just listened long enough to get what he was saying, you would clearly conclude it was sarcasm. And you emphasized it with such vehemence that I could just see your blood boiling. But, yes, he did point to scientific evidence. But you can't accept something that you won't listen to. And when you're already that biased, you're not listening to anything... as is evidenced by that fact that you didn't even follow the conversation you and I have been having here.

So, when children are encouraged to slip dollar bills into a drag queen's panties, this is just a conservative false flag? We're not the ones setting these events up. We're also not the ones who cancelled such events when they found out that the event would be closed to minors. We not writing children's books with graphic depictions of sexual parts and sexual acts and putting them in elementary school libraries while removing the Bible because it has "sexual depictions". We're not the ones encouraging and sometimes forcing teachers to tell elementary school children that they could be trans and if they are just talk to the teachers about it, don't tell your parents because they might not understand. I'm quite tolerant when grown adults want to FREELY interact with other adults. But when children are involved in such activities, how are we expected to react other than by crying out "GROOMING"?

I read the rest of both your posts. But I cringe whenever I hear/read a statement like these. It tends to have the not so subtle implication "so what's the big deal?" Have the efforts really increased recently? I think the efforts have always been there. But now they are enforced (even forced upon us) by government. I absolutely understand that in a conglomerate society, we need to make allowances for others who believe differently. And when you're an adult, we need to allow people to do things to themselves that are very self-destructive. But when government forces it down our throats and the activists use violence to force things upon us, there is a problem.

Do you even know what I was referring to? You should take a look back at your own post that I quoted from.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/18/pupil-teacher-despicable-identifying-cat-transgender/ People said this was ridiculous only a year ago. "Oh that would never happen. That's just a slippery slope fallacy. You're over-reacting." It's happening. I had mentioned that people are going to "identify" as a minor so they can commit pedophilia. But, oh, that would never happen. I'm just over-reacting. Slippery slope fallacy... Uh-huh.

I would have waited until she was almost finished and... You might want to wash your hands now. She may or may not have asked "why?" or simply said "ok". But then I'd add: You don't know what he did those laces that made me refuse to tie them. Disgust, understanding, and respect all rolled into one.

Our ward did bupkis for Father's day. The Primary got up and sang a song. But frankly, I didn't hear a word of it. I don't even remember what the song was. My youngest is officially out of primary as of Jan of this year. Usually they have some candy or a temporary memento... something. This year, nothing. I got home and my family gave me several things that meant a lot to me. I'm very grateful for my family. One gift was a T-shirt with the batman logo with the word "Dadman" on it. I just found out this morning that my ministering brother got the same shirt from his family. Apparently it's a thing.

I'm not sure if you've been to a civil war museum or any Lincoln museum. But one interesting statement that I heard in one such museum is that Lincoln looked like he was dead already. One expert on death masks and life masks looked at his life mask and absolutely would not believe it was a life mask. He said something like He then went on to point out the differences between a life mask and a death mask, thus proving the object he was looking at was indeed a death mask. And he indicated that even stress or old age never creates these features. So, it had nothing to do with his lifestyle. Unfortunately for him, the mask came with a historical custody and date of creation (which was quite a while before his death). Regardless of his expertise (which everyone around him granted) he was just plain wrong.

This goes to show how little you paid attention to those videos. If you pay that little attention to what Lindsley actually said, can we really believe you did proper due diligence in your critique of his findings?

Fixed. It was supposed to be Luke 19:46. I could also add Matt 21:13 as well.

Impressive numbers. But... https://www.statista.com/statistics/608088/australia-age-distribution/ Those purported results don't seem to be making much of a difference in either the 15-19 or 20-24 age categories. Several other countries have tried doing the same thing -- some with even greater bonuses (PPP). And they have made little to no impact for those nations.

Dude! I just watched a bunch of this guy's videos. He's freaking awesome!!

LOL!!! Perfect video! But as fun as it was, I sort of agree and sort of disagree. I tend to believe that (while there are outliers) the great majority of the differences are that there are smooth/adorable ways to do something and creepy ways to do things. Reference: @NeuroTypical's example of "I will always find you" in cutesy font vs. bloody knives font. It really is the same for romantic overtures. It is the ability of the man who performs these overtures to line up with the mindset of the woman he's interested in which will determine how it is received. And, yes, that also includes whether the girl finds the boy to be worthy. The hypergamy of the human female is unique among mammals (or so I'm told). So, the male has to up his game. ("worthy" is the key concept). Yup. I was aware of the quote. But I found it disappointing to note also:

I'm in full agreement with your description of how leftists view liberals. But the problem with liberals is that they say with very little enthusiasm that they disagree with leftists (I got this from back channels). But when speaking with conservatives, oh-so-very-few actually say they agree with conservatives regarding the points where they disagree with leftists. They seem to fall all over themselves to try to cover for leftists. It has occurred to me that the individuals I know are pretty much all in Texas. Maybe that is influencing results of my sample size. I have a theory. Maybe most of the old school liberals who once upon a time hated conservatives actually agree that the left has gone too far. But they just can't bring themselves to admit it to the point where they would refuse to vote for a Democrat, or (gasp) actually vote for a Republican. So, to rectify this in their own minds, they just can't admit to it out loud, or else their beliefs would be incongruent with their actions. It's not like people don't do that (like almost everyone almost all the time).

I like this idea.