Carborendum

Seems like a good place to put this.  I enjoy visuals like this:
 

Wow.  I had a hard time believing that was written by a liberal.  But I realized that it was an old school liberal who had not bowed to the woke mob.
A lot of people have not changed their positions.  But the parties have moved the needle.

We actually do the four questions and go over the plagues of Egypt on Easter Sunday.  We eat the traditional Paschal foods for Easter dinner and talk about links between the deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt and the deliverance of man from sin.

Count your many blessings, name them one, by one...........   

I'll tell you two stories:
1.
I was at school and found a girl sitting alone.  I started up a conversation with her.  We did some nice flirting for a while.  It was fun.  After a while, another guy came up and asked if she was ready to go.  From their interactions, I gathered they were married (calling her "hon" and so on).  I felt kind of embarrassed and disappointed.  She was cute.
2.
My sister had a few friends over to her apartment.  All of them had husbands.  One of them talked about "dressing sexy."  I don't know if those were the exact words they used.  But that is how I remember it.  Because I was very quiet and "the hostess's brother" most of the ladies were very free with their speech.  They indicated that it was not just the normal "competing with other women."  It was about attracting other guys.
I eventually interjected,"But aren't you all married?"
"Yeah.  But that doesn't mean we don't like attention from other men."  I kind of looked at them with a quizzical look.  "It's flattering to get hit on by a guy.  And it's completely safe when all you have to do is lift up your hand and show your ring."
I still don't know whether this is good behavior or not.  But I do know that you are not alone in wanting to feel pretty and desirable.

I must point out again that you've never met me.  

VID_20240408_133952.mp4    

Pictures

These are my personal observations. Take them for what they seem worth to you.
There are two types of men:
Those that understand women on an emotional level Those that do not understand women, but naively assume that women are emotionally pretty much like men, only more prone to tears The second group is far larger than the first. Most temple-worthy Latter-day Saint men find themselves in Camp 2. Your husband is statistically likely to be a Camp Twoer.
Men can also be divided (roughly) into two camps along another axis, namely, how they feel toward women:
Those that respect women Those that do not truly respect women as people, but see them as things to be used to achieve their own ends. Call these Camp A and Camp B. Curiously, at least in my experience, Camp A seems at least as large as Camp B, and probably larger, both inside and outside the Church. To hear women talk about it, you would never guess that to be the case, but I think it is.
Some men call themselves "pick-up artists". These men are usually from Camp 1 and almost always from Camp B. Women find these guys irresistable. Why? In part at least, it's because they are from Camp 1 and understand women. And because these men are also from Camp B, they use their understanding of women to get into their panties. For them, that's the game. They are expert flirts.
For women, flirting is a game to see if they (the women) can garner external validation. For men (at least for the PAs), flirting is a game to see if they (the men) can successfully seduce the women. This is a dangerous, volatile situation. The women involved in flirting may not consciously be looking for a sexual "hook-up", and may even believe they want to avoid that. But they are craving that emotional validation, and the men (at least the PAs) know exactly how to feed that hunger. Many women have found themselves in bed with a man they don't know and/or don't even like because they "followed their heart" (meaning their emotions) into the bedroom.
Odds are that you would not follow through and cheat on your husband. But let's be clear: You're playing with fire and stand a nonzero chance of getting burned. If you view your marriage through a gospel lens, you will consider it of infinite importance, and would not risk its integrity to get some attention any more than you would risk your child's life to get some thrills. Whether or not the other guy was a PA is beside the point, at least as far as that goes.
(By the way, women divide into the same two sets of camps as men. Like men, most women dwell in Camp 2, which is why women so often naively and wrongly claim that men are "emotionally stunted" or some nonsense of the sort; they expect men to be women that shave their faces. However, my observation is that women are pretty equally divided between Camps A and B, and if anything tend more toward Camp B. Men are and always have been viewed by women as caretakers. As a result, women view men quite dispassionately—many men would say ruthlessly—as to what the men can offer to the woman. This is most obvious when talking with young women in their late teens and twenties. If Carb had listened to his sister's friends much longer, he likely would eventually have heard conversation that would have included the women objectifying men, including their husbands, to a shocking degree. Not all women do this, of course; my wife never does. But if men stay quiet and pay attention to what women say in public and in private, many of them will be amazed at what they hear. Women are not the people we men often think they are. More to the point, women are not the people we men have been taught that they are.)

Not really.
I was looking for (as Mav claimed) specific examples of Young's tendency to jump back and forth between topics without preamble or segue.  I've read through the JoD and never noticed this tendency anywhere besides the A-G theory.  It was so unusual that I distinctly remember the first time I ever read it, thinking,"This is really strange.  Where did that come from?  It has nothing to do with the topic he was just talking about.  It came out of left field."
Then when he was done with that, he seemed to pickup right where he left off.  Literally, if you plucked A-G out of the discourse, it would seem like a perfectly seamless discourse.  No other changes required.
I have seen many times that speakers (incl. Young) would make a statement that he would give a little background that was tangentially related.  And that background was necessary to understand the next section of the original topic.  
To some, this seems like jumping around.  I don't because that is the way I do some discourses myself.
But none of the discourses I've seen was as stark as A-G. None of them made me get whiplash from simply reading it. A-G did.
That is why I believe there was some sort of mistake with this record, as well as the way people heard it.

Not really.
I was looking for (as Mav claimed) specific examples of Young's tendency to jump back and forth between topics without preamble or segue.  I've read through the JoD and never noticed this tendency anywhere besides the A-G theory.  It was so unusual that I distinctly remember the first time I ever read it, thinking,"This is really strange.  Where did that come from?  It has nothing to do with the topic he was just talking about.  It came out of left field."
Then when he was done with that, he seemed to pickup right where he left off.  Literally, if you plucked A-G out of the discourse, it would seem like a perfectly seamless discourse.  No other changes required.
I have seen many times that speakers (incl. Young) would make a statement that he would give a little background that was tangentially related.  And that background was necessary to understand the next section of the original topic.  
To some, this seems like jumping around.  I don't because that is the way I do some discourses myself.
But none of the discourses I've seen was as stark as A-G. None of them made me get whiplash from simply reading it. A-G did.
That is why I believe there was some sort of mistake with this record, as well as the way people heard it.

Word meanings change. The word "power" has a specific definition in physics; it means the rate of energy delivery. It doesn't mean anything else, just that. "Solar power", as the term is usually used, is a misnomer that physicists roll their eyes at, to say nothing of "political power" or "girl power" or "the power of love". How do you suppose "Priesthood power" fits into that definition? (Hint: It doesn't.)
"The elements" mean the essential, basic things around us. The fact that 19th-century chemists assigned a specific definition of the word element, namely a species of atom with a certain positive number of protons in the nucleus, doesn't mean that the old definitions don't work any more. They do.
Consider: The book of Leviticus lists unclean birds that the children of Israel were to avoid eating. The final entry of unclean birds in that list is `atalleph (עֲטַלֵּף), Hebrew for "bat". Now—and I am not making this up—I once heard someone (an atheist) mock the Bible because the book of Leviticus says that bats are birds. No kidding. This guy seriously thought that since ancient Palestinians did not follow our modern taxonomy, but instead counted the bat (a small, winged, flying creature) as a type of bird, that meant that the Bible was made up.
People understand things based on previous experience. But any reasonably intelligent and open-minded person will also understand that words can be used in different ways and with different meanings. The fact that a certain word, e.g. "element", means one thing in Context A and another thing in Context B really shouldn't faze anyone.
The power of the Priesthood—yes, power, even if that doesn't mean rate of energy usage—is not water bending or any other comic book idea. It's the reality of how the universe is put together. It gives control over the elements, where the elements has a much more expansive definition than simply the list of types of atoms with increasing atomic numbers.

Decided it warrants a quote:
Be the ship.

I really have missed this group!  My children keep having children, then they get married and you know the routine.  With the grands and great grandchildren...there are 32 of the little critters with another 2 greats coming this summer!
I read the highlights sent to my email, and inbetween dehydrating,  found time to sit down and say hi!

It's fascinating watching GenZ/Alpha starting to expound on stuff they're learning about the BoM.  So much political and social commentary goes with it:
 
 
 

The "bar" has a footnote to Moroni 10.  
I noted that the "bar" (from Moroni 10) used in conjunction with "Eternal Judge" indicates that the "bar" spoken of is about the final judgement.  Maybe, maybe not.  I was thinking of "the bar" that is used in modern settings for the inner area in the courtroom for the judge and lawyers.  So, I could see this referring to God as the ultimate judge. Therefore, we meet at his bar.
The problem is that this usage of the word "bar" is of modern origin.  It was far later than Moroni, and certainly later than Jacob.  So, why is this "bar" used in these verses?
It is easy enough to say that these were simply the best modern language equivalents to ancient figures of speech.  And it could be.  But I just don't feel right about it.
Another answer didn't occur to me until I re-read the words:
This isn't the bar of a modern courtroom.  This is a scepter, either of the Egyptian Pharaoh or a Judge of Israel (or possibly some combination of the two).
I prefer that dual symbolism of the Egyptian Pharaohs.  The flail and scepter were double-dual symbols.  
The flail could punish disobedient servants, or it could be used to thresh wheat, thus providing for the people. The shepherd's crook was either a way to STRIKE down a criminal, or to bring a repentant soul into the fold. To say that the bar (staff, rod, etc.) was "pleasing", and then say that is striketh fear and dread, would indicate a dual symbol.

VID_20240408_133952.mp4    

Pictures

The "bar" has a footnote to Moroni 10.  
I noted that the "bar" (from Moroni 10) used in conjunction with "Eternal Judge" indicates that the "bar" spoken of is about the final judgement.  Maybe, maybe not.  I was thinking of "the bar" that is used in modern settings for the inner area in the courtroom for the judge and lawyers.  So, I could see this referring to God as the ultimate judge. Therefore, we meet at his bar.
The problem is that this usage of the word "bar" is of modern origin.  It was far later than Moroni, and certainly later than Jacob.  So, why is this "bar" used in these verses?
It is easy enough to say that these were simply the best modern language equivalents to ancient figures of speech.  And it could be.  But I just don't feel right about it.
Another answer didn't occur to me until I re-read the words:
This isn't the bar of a modern courtroom.  This is a scepter, either of the Egyptian Pharaoh or a Judge of Israel (or possibly some combination of the two).
I prefer that dual symbolism of the Egyptian Pharaohs.  The flail and scepter were double-dual symbols.  
The flail could punish disobedient servants, or it could be used to thresh wheat, thus providing for the people. The shepherd's crook was either a way to STRIKE down a criminal, or to bring a repentant soul into the fold. To say that the bar (staff, rod, etc.) was "pleasing", and then say that is striketh fear and dread, would indicate a dual symbol.

So, my family is going to see the eclipse this coming Monday.  We're just a few hours away from the path of Totality.  We're planning on heading out right near @Ironhold's stomping grounds.
We have no idea what the popularity will be.  But if it is the nearest spot for me, you can bet that most of the eclipse chasers (out of 4 million people in Houston) will want to go to the same location. 
Texas is fortunate since the duration of the total eclipse will be longer with a decrease in latitude.  We'll get nearly four minutes of the total eclipse.
With the roads clogged, we may have difficulty returning.  I hope we don't run out of gas.  Or we'll be the only idiots driving out in the middle of nowhere looking at an event for just a few minutes only to returrn home with a memory.  We can't really take pictures... can we?
But memories will be what makes and breaks this family.

Travel there was not too bad.  Google rerouted us a couple of times to shorten our travel.  Instead of the predicted 2:30h trip, it was about 2:50. We stopped by the Target for a pit stop.  The bathrooms were fine. The parking lot was normal -- nowhere near full.  It was about what you'd expect on a Monday morning. We went to a city park just south of the freeway from there.  The parking lot was nearly full.  But we managed to park two cars.  Plenty of room to layout and get a table. I got several shots at different stages.  And I got the perfect video of the totality.  I'll post when I'm at an appropriate interface. The cloud cover was actually the perfect level for photography. I happened to switch to video just as the last crescent was showing.  Then the totality. The red dot was, indeed a solar flare or sunspot.  There was a professional eclipse chaser at the park about 40 ft from our table.  My 12 y.o. liked his scope setup and got curious. They traded contact info and now, this man ("Lloyd") is going to be a distance mentor for my son on the subject of astronomy. The trip home was horrendous.  We thought we'd miss rush hour.  But there were major accidents on every route home.  That delayed us long enough that we hit rush hour.  Then that slowed us down to get us home in 4 hours.  But that was soon enough to get my visiting BIL to the airport, just in the nick of time. My wife had told me that the few minutes of totality would be like nighttime.  Not really.  It was like late twilight. But it was dark enough that the park's automatic lamps turned on.
I often wonder why there is a difference between seeing photos or video vs actually being there in person.  The actual event as a memory frozen in time is no different to me.  But the overall experience is different.  When we were there we had to deal with the clouds on again - off again behavior.  We were afraid that the 3 to 4 minutes of totality would be denied us.  But there was a happy medium that was better than we expected just as the totality occurred.  That slight layer of clouds made it perfect.  Then there were the interactions we had because "an event" was happening.  We simply wouldn't interact that way if it was just a photo or video.

A bit like hearing someone sing Hallelujah in Sacrament Meeting.  I heard it happened.