NeuroTypical

I've been off arguing church finances with the critics on another board for a few years.  I did a little research on where we stick our temples, measured by the GDP of the country where they're built, and I made this chart:

Each dot represents all the temples in a certain country.  So those two dots at the bottom right represent Brazil's 22 and Mexico's 25 temples, both horrendously poor nations with a per capita GDP of under $10k per year.  Temples are a massive investment of funds.  Maybe ~$60 million each to build, and maybe ~$3-4 million per year to operate.   
Yes, roughly half of the temples are built in happy rich 1st world high GDP USA.  Because that's where roughly half of the worlds' saints live.  But with only two exceptions, every other temple we build is built in a nation poorer than the US.  
158 temples are in countries with under $40k per capita GDP.  150 in countries with under $20k.  131 in the world's poorest nations, with the crushing poverty of under $10k per capita GDP.   If the saints in those areas had to rely on their own tithing donations to fund their temples, they couldn't hope to ever pay for one.
If you're a church critic with issues on how the church uses it's wealth, even you are forced to admit that half of the temples cost more than they bring in.  
We're currently seeing exponential growth in new temples.  When I ask myself how long that exponential growth will continue, one possible answer would be "as long as we can afford it".   Someone with a background in monitoring how large wealthy organizations run their charitable endowments ran the numbers.  Their back-of-a-napkin numbers said the church might be able to fully fund roughly ~2500 temples in poor areas who can't afford to pay for it via tithing.   At the current rate of growth, we could reach that in the year 2067.  
Imma be paying attention in General Conference when they announce new temples!   Hoping for 18-20 or more!  And every time a poorer nation is named, I'll be rejoicing!

Sometimes I feel like the last guy out there in a family where I was always the worker and my wife was the SAHM.  I have to be careful telling stories because of the awkward silences that ensue.
However, I'm hearing a new phrase in social media: "Trad wife".  It's used both favorably and critically, but there are an awful lot of GenY folks out there wanting to live the lifestyle.  I'm ok with younger generations finding it appealing to have the dude be the main provider and the chick be the main kiddo nurturer.  Next year is the 30th anniversary of the Proclamation on the Family - it has weathered startlingly well, and new humans in the US are coming up with some of the principles here on their own without ever being LDS.
But yeah, the "I'll find a man and will never have to work" notion should be dispelled.  The SAHGirlfriend thing is troubling.  ~15 years ago, my bishop asked me to give a talk about the importance of women gaining an education and job experience.  Basically, how the women in our church need to prepare for a future where they'll get married and never have to work.  Statistics, even 15 years ago, stated that most of them would have to work for at least part of their lives.  

What I don’t understand are those people who “fear commitment” but have matching tattoos and three kids together, yet are not married  

I don't know if this is new, per say, but my internet algorithm keeps throwing stuff at me for some reason about the rise of the stay-at-home girlfriend lifestyle.
Now, while I realize that the housewife/homemaker stereotype was actually a flash in the pan historically, at least the way we want to picture it and usually the female adult of the house was doing SOMETHING besides watching soaps and eating bon-bons, I do support the general notion of a caretaker of home and children. I think there are many benefits to this: house care, direct and full-tie involvement with children's needs, food prep, errands, even the wild card in the back pocket of having someone a household could theoretically always send to work for money, if needed.
But the notions of the stay-at-home girlfriend vs the stay-at-home wife (or, hey, husband, whatever) seem worlds apart and I'd even say a mockery of that traditional type of marriage. On the surface, it seems the same: you have someone caring for the home. Yet is there any commitment or is it just two people playing house? In the current economy, it really is a sacrifice for many to get by on a single income. So what happens when the stay-at-home girlfriend, without the significantly greater commitment (and, let's be honest, legal protection) of marriage, gets dumped? Why would you be in this situation without a real commitment despite the sacrifices?
And I realize the ones making it on social media rather do have a job and are getting an income out of this, but what message does it send?

I've been off arguing church finances with the critics on another board for a few years.  I did a little research on where we stick our temples, measured by the GDP of the country where they're built, and I made this chart:

Each dot represents all the temples in a certain country.  So those two dots at the bottom right represent Brazil's 22 and Mexico's 25 temples, both horrendously poor nations with a per capita GDP of under $10k per year.  Temples are a massive investment of funds.  Maybe ~$60 million each to build, and maybe ~$3-4 million per year to operate.   
Yes, roughly half of the temples are built in happy rich 1st world high GDP USA.  Because that's where roughly half of the worlds' saints live.  But with only two exceptions, every other temple we build is built in a nation poorer than the US.  
158 temples are in countries with under $40k per capita GDP.  150 in countries with under $20k.  131 in the world's poorest nations, with the crushing poverty of under $10k per capita GDP.   If the saints in those areas had to rely on their own tithing donations to fund their temples, they couldn't hope to ever pay for one.
If you're a church critic with issues on how the church uses it's wealth, even you are forced to admit that half of the temples cost more than they bring in.  
We're currently seeing exponential growth in new temples.  When I ask myself how long that exponential growth will continue, one possible answer would be "as long as we can afford it".   Someone with a background in monitoring how large wealthy organizations run their charitable endowments ran the numbers.  Their back-of-a-napkin numbers said the church might be able to fully fund roughly ~2500 temples in poor areas who can't afford to pay for it via tithing.   At the current rate of growth, we could reach that in the year 2067.  
Imma be paying attention in General Conference when they announce new temples!   Hoping for 18-20 or more!  And every time a poorer nation is named, I'll be rejoicing!

I've been off arguing church finances with the critics on another board for a few years.  I did a little research on where we stick our temples, measured by the GDP of the country where they're built, and I made this chart:

Each dot represents all the temples in a certain country.  So those two dots at the bottom right represent Brazil's 22 and Mexico's 25 temples, both horrendously poor nations with a per capita GDP of under $10k per year.  Temples are a massive investment of funds.  Maybe ~$60 million each to build, and maybe ~$3-4 million per year to operate.   
Yes, roughly half of the temples are built in happy rich 1st world high GDP USA.  Because that's where roughly half of the worlds' saints live.  But with only two exceptions, every other temple we build is built in a nation poorer than the US.  
158 temples are in countries with under $40k per capita GDP.  150 in countries with under $20k.  131 in the world's poorest nations, with the crushing poverty of under $10k per capita GDP.   If the saints in those areas had to rely on their own tithing donations to fund their temples, they couldn't hope to ever pay for one.
If you're a church critic with issues on how the church uses it's wealth, even you are forced to admit that half of the temples cost more than they bring in.  
We're currently seeing exponential growth in new temples.  When I ask myself how long that exponential growth will continue, one possible answer would be "as long as we can afford it".   Someone with a background in monitoring how large wealthy organizations run their charitable endowments ran the numbers.  Their back-of-a-napkin numbers said the church might be able to fully fund roughly ~2500 temples in poor areas who can't afford to pay for it via tithing.   At the current rate of growth, we could reach that in the year 2067.  
Imma be paying attention in General Conference when they announce new temples!   Hoping for 18-20 or more!  And every time a poorer nation is named, I'll be rejoicing!

Isn't Negative income tax just another coin, or another side of the coin of Universal Basic Income? 
Experiments showed (on a quick look up) that it only returned a postive $1 for every $3 taxed on it.
It may be different if we restricted it only to those who were able to qualify for Social Security, but we'd still need a Social Security Tax in order to provide for it.
However, it is a considered by some a form of UBI, which many also consider another form of Socialism.
Personally, I'm not sure what I think of UBI or other ideas similar to it right now.  Some of the ideas sound off to me, so I don't think I'm in favor of it, but at the same time...in regards to Social Security, that's the only form of income some people have.
ON the otherhand, if we instituted Negative Income Tax, I probably would still be taxed on SS in my paycheck, but may not get a check from the government anymore in that sort of payment scheme. 

May your page load lag just enough that you end up accidentally clicking the ad link.

Gentamicin has seen to it that I hear continuous noise day and night. It's always with me, a kind of devoted but annoying friend that never, ever shuts up.

Hope you have clear skies.
Make sure you are in totality.  Close does not get it!
Bring binoculars - not a telescope.
Get to your viewing site early and don’t plan on going home till the following day.    
Have a viewing plan. Look for the corona & solar prominences, look for the stars and planets.  Big open spaces are better than in the city.  It’s great to watch the animal reactions.  Notice the temperature changing.
Looking directly at the sun for a second wont blind you permanently.  But it will totally ruin your eyesight for a couple minutes (the duration of totality).
Bring water and snacks / food.  Full tank of gas.  Toilet paper, baby wipes, shovel just in case.  Suntan lotion etc.
#14 Welding glass is the best to look at the sun prior to totality.
 

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.

I will predict at least two in places I did not know there was even a ward there and one in a place I did not know even existed.
In my youth I could name all the temples – but back then there were only 12 and the year I graduated from high school they dedicated the 13th.   I set a goal to visit al the temples.  Currently I can’t even tell you all the temples in Utah.  I am starting to take all the temples for granted.  The wife and went to our assigned temple forgetting that it was closed for a week of deep cleaning.  So we just went to another temple.  We ended up finding out there 4 temples were closed for something before we found one (all within less than an hour drive of our home) was open.  Now days that problem is solved because we make appointments.   At the most recent Roots Tec I learned that on the Family Tree app I can find the name(s) of the closest relation to take to the temple.
I am guessing that we will be told that the Kirtland temple will soon be restored and rededicated.  I would like to be there for that.
 
The Traveler

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

It's fluffy bunnies! How cute!
 

There's a meme going around claiming that someone saw Watership Down, decided that because the cover pictured these cute little bunnies it would be a fun Easter film for the whole family to see, and developed a very severe case of regret. 

Wow.  I just realized that I haven't seen any TV or movie in a while.  But just this last weekend, the little lady and I went to see Dune Part II.
It was interesting to compare it to the 1984 version and contrast them both with the book.  Empress had not seen the earlier version, nor red the book.  So, it was nice to have a captive audience for me to share my thoughts about it all.

Switching through some of the old Hollywood 'easter' films this past weekend, I stopped on 'The Greatest Story Ever Told'. I had not really seen it before and was surprised at the impressive scenery in it. There is a vastness in the backgrounds that I haven't seen in other of those types of films.  In fact, it's almost as if the land in which the story took place was that of Robert E Howard's mythical Conan world rather than the ancient near east. This may be worth getting on bluray just for that.

Dang - are you sure you aren't me?  I had a startlingly similar experience when I was 6, and then again when I was 7, and then throughout the rest of elementary and middle school.   My elementary school was in the '70's, middle/high school in the '80's.  And you had this experience in the UK?  I grew up in Salt Lake City.  Well, we're all born stupid.  I guess there are recurring themes as kids form social circles and look for things to include and things to exclude. 
From what I can tell about today's kids, it's now trendy and cool to be part of the alphabet and feel guilty about being white.  The bad kids are transphobes and fascists and haters.

Here is my guesses for this conference: 
Richfield, Utah
Flagstaff, Arizona
Amarillo, Texas
Littlerock, Arkansas
Trelew, Argentina
Neuquen, Argentina
Glasgow, Scotland
Dublin, Ireland
Daloa, Ivory Coast
Abuja Nigeria
Milan, Italy
Blackfoot, Idaho

As the late great Neil Peart once said...
 

As a kid, I was subjected to homophobic abuse. And I'm not even gay! In fact I am SO not-gay, I think many of those who homophobe-abused me were gay by comparison. In fact I suspect some were actually real-gay with an "I'll homo-abuse the allegedly gay kid to get the attention off myself" type of agenda.
But that's speculation.
The point is, I know that homophobic abuse is an actual thing, coz I've been on the receiving end. And though I agree there is much nonsense talked about "hate speech", homophobia (along with transphobia) is a real thing.
But it's so easy to think after the event what you should have said. I was never able to think on my feet. So I'm going to indulge in a little wish-fulfilment fantasy...
There was one kid - somewhat older than me - whom I'm going to call him "CT". He once gave me a grilling about what I'd do if I were propositioned by a half-naked Bo Derek, beckoning me to bed. When I didn't immediately respond in words to the effect that I'd "do" her, he told me I was not normal, while his bully-partner (a smirking sycophant whom I'll call "CV") snickered snottily away to himself in the background.
CT: So? What would you do? There's Bo Derek calling out for you, wanting you!"
Me: Well... (Not sure how to respond. Even then I had a superstitious view of sex [barring masturbation], even though I was not very outwardly religious.)
CT:  Come on! It's Bo Derek? You do know who Bob Derek is, don't you?"
Me: She was in 10. And Tarzan the Ape M..."
CT: So...? What would you do?
Me: OK, well tell me first what you'd do?
CT: Oh well...haha...what wouldn't I do? Haha...mmmemmmmemmmm... (performs bodily contortions intended to convey sexual arousal, but actually more suggestive of diarrhea)
This is where fantasy takes over...
Me: So you'd have had "carnal knowledge" of her?
CT: Mmmm...you could put it that way....(continued vocalizations and bodily contortions). But you'd just run away, wouldn't you? Like a scared little rabbit, that's you! You'd...
Me: Has it never occurred to you that Bo Derek is married?
CT: (Momentarily taken aback) What...?
Me: Yes. To John Derek. That's how she got the name 'Derek', you know. Or did you think that's the name she was born with?
CT: I don't believe this! If you think...you're actually saying that...?
Me: That I think the sanctity of marriage is important? You bet I am! Or are you the sort of slimy little toad who goes around sleeping with other men's wives?
CT: What...? (looking over to CV for support, but getting none.)
Me: Because if you are, then I hope that when you get married, some other little slime ball comes and has his way with your wife! And I hope she enjoys him ten times better than you!
CT: But...
Me: And I hope he tells everyone about it, and everyone has a good laugh at Mr. Cuckoo-Cuckold! *does cuckoo impressions*
It's good to dream...

@JohnsonJones  If you have the experience you say (I'm taking you at your word that you do) then you know how safe that child was and how ridiculous your concerns are.
 
Timestap 7:40 so you can see clearly what you will also see in the next picture.  Rifle slung downwards.
 

 
 
Time stamp 7:42 the rifle is slung.  Non threatening.  Puh-leeze JJ...puh-leeze.  
 

 
 
 
My bonafides on the topic:
 
I am 26 year officer (still working.)
I am a building clearing instructor.
I am an active shooter/rapid response instructor.
I am a MACTAC instructor (counter terrorist active shooter stuff.)
 
You are really reaching JJ.

I don't have any immediate thoughts, but I'll add the phrase to my General Conference bingo card.

I don't have any immediate thoughts, but I'll add the phrase to my General Conference bingo card.

Recently I remembered hearing a phrase repeated in a couple of Pres Nelson's general conference talks and knowing if a prophet repeats himself it's generally a point of emphasis so I decided to find them and study up on it. That phrase was "spiritual work." So I did a search looking for the two or three talks he says it and was surprised to find out that he has mentioned it in six different talks since becoming president of the church.
"...when you yoke yourself to Jesus Christ and do the spiritual work required to overcome the world, He, and He alone, does have the power to lift you above the pull of this world."
"Please do the spiritual work to increase your capacity to receive personal revelation."
"Do the spiritual work to seek miracles."
"It takes persistent, rigorous spiritual work to repent and to put off the natural man through the Atonement of Jesus Christ."
"Do the spiritual work to find out for yourselves, and please do it now. Time is running out."
"Choose to do the spiritual work required to enjoy the gift of the Holy Ghost and hear the voice of the Spirit more frequently and more clearly."
Now it may not mean anything more than just a phrase he picked up over the years to convey the general idea of living the gospel except that my search did not yield any GC talks prior to his becoming president where he used that phrase. To me it sounds like he is trying to drive home a point. While I interpret the general meaning behind the phrase to be a general rejection of the idea of what some call cheap grace and that we cannot simply be spectators in the gospel it does make me wonder if there is a particular concern he is addressing that perhaps did not always exist in the past. Any thoughts?