The Nehor

There are a lot of problems. Space is cold (sort of) but because there is no air stuff in space cools slowly. Incredibly slowly. One of the big problems with spacecraft and satellites that generate heat is radiating that heat away from the object. You would need a lot of radiator panels or some other form of heat dissipation and that stuff is heavy for a normal spacecraft. For a data center you have to up that weight by several orders of magnitude. You also have to harden the whole thing against radiation way beyond what would be required on Earth which increases the launch weight even more. Data centers are also regularly upgraded in terms of hardware and this would be very expensive. Also if something breaks you have to launch a mission to fix it which is, again, very expensive. The big bright side is that with solar panels you could run one 24/7 with no gaps due to the ease with which you can collect solar energy ad stay on the sun’s side of the planet. It is not the environmentalists keeping this from happening though there are worries about damage to the planet from that many launches into orbit. Astronomers also know that that many satellites will mess with earth based telescopes and make astronomy much more difficult. But it is the corporate bean counters who won’t fund this. We would need to see a huge reduction in the cost of moving each kilogram into orbit before this is at all commercially viable. He did but this is not a feasible or sane plan. I suspect this was just a run of the mill stock manipulation tactic before that recent IPO with no real plan to actually do it. Musk is a grandstander that loves to over-promise and under-deliver. It is kind of his brand. A million satellites is also a potential Kessler effect nightmare. And all this for Grok? Why?

I just checked it on the website and in Gospel Library. Lorenzo snow Student manual. Sub-heading is “They Shall Organize Worlds and Rule Over Them”

In other words you want your religious views privileged in education while still somehow having a pluralistic society. In other words you want queer kids isolated from support of any kind or even the acknowledgement that others like them exist in the public sphere. That is often incredibly damaging. Doubting this. Nope. However I think your idea of “images of sex” involves stuff that is not actually about sex but just people showing more skin than you are personally comfortable with. The explicit Pride parades are (in the United States) limited to a few parades. San Francisco and a few in the Pacific Northwest are the ones I know of. Most have none. And a drag queen story hour is not a sexually explicit event unless they are reading erotica or something which is not the norm. Of course this is just what you were doing above and inherently sexualizing the bodies and even just the existence of queer people. From the National Women’s Law Center: “Project 2025’s authors also paint supportive schools as full-on harbingers of moral collapse, infested with the “toxic normalization of transgenderism.” Their efforts to rid schools of this so-called toxicity are downright horrifying. Project 2025 calls for outlawing pornography—and equates that with materials that acknowledge the existence of LGBTQI+ people. Pornography, they say, is “manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children.” It’s hard to escape the implications of what this means: If affirming LGBTQI+ people = pornography and pornography must be banned, that sounds an awful lot like criminalizing respect for our existence. They take it one step further: They say that people who make this material available should be imprisoned, and teachers and libraries who share it should be forced to register as sex offenders.” “Let’s be clear: Criminalizing people like teachers and librarians is not about protecting kids. It’s about vilifying LGBTQI+ youth and turning them into bogeymen in a manufactured culture war. It’s about isolating them by threatening anyone who supports them.” Yep, isolating queer minors and turning us into pornography. This is where you got the ideology. It didn’t come from scripture. It came from Christian Nationalism. It is an attempt to undo part of the First Amendment and privilege religious views. And LDS are not part of the chosen if Christian Nationalism ends up working. I doubt it will but if it does and solidifies power LDS people will quickly discover they were only useful idiots. Getting rid of pluralism is a terrible idea when you are a minority of any kind. Then why aren’t you posting long diatribes against taking kids to Mardi Gras so I don’t believe for a second that you consider hetero and homo displays as equivalent.

I am not worried if the Catholics launch a crusade. https://going-medieval.com/2025/07/09/on-crusades-or-how-not-to-identify-with-losers/

Gender Queer is not a children’s book. Out of Darkness is a young adult novel that includes a heterosexual rape. How is this evidence that queer people are trying to sneak in perverse books? This is ridiculous. It is a hearing Again, Gender Queer was written for adults. But they’re usually idiots. This is High School being discussed and many of the books this discusses aren’t even LGBTQ related. I refuse to take anything written on Facebook seriously. I have standards. We created a moral panic and people are panicking. This is proof the moral panic is a good thing. Yes, and the question itself clearly comes from a perverted mind. THIS IS DISGUSTING! Seriously, this is sick. A book mentions that a boy has a crush on another boy. Gay people exist and no graphic descriptions are needed. So let me ask you an equally stupid question. Do you think it is possible to have literature that addresses and acknowledges that "straight people exist" while not exposing children to graphic and explicit descriptions of sexual acts and behaviors? What kind of degenerate would think that mentioning a husband and wife in a book somehow exposes children to obscenity? So why do you do the same to queer people? This is just blatant bigotry and a massive double standard. GROSS! Because school libraries get batches of donated books and don’t have the manpower to read all of them. Okay, that is not a specifically LGBTQ book either. It is also not porn. It probably doesn’t belong in an elementary school. Love how the person describing it focuses on the gay sex though. The hetero sex is right there but they clearly want to imply that queer people snuck in the book for some reason. Why are queer people being blamed for all of this again? That is not a cyclical pattern that is happening. No one is saying there aren’t some age-inappropriate books in some school libraries. The problem is that they are arguing that there is some nebulous collection of LGBTQ people flooding schools with inappropriate material, a lot of it mostly or entirely heterosexual for some reason. Seems like a weird way of indoctrinating people. I am kind of offended this group hasn’t invited me to join. The narrative isn’t that there is some age-inappropriate stuff in schools. That is true. The narrative is that queer people are stocking schools with book to deliberately corrupt children which is not happening. A side effect of this campaign is to label anything that refers to a queer person as obscene and sexually explicit. Basically an attempt to turn all queer people into “walking porn” the same way women with short skirts are I suppose. Then they can purge all mention of queer people as obscene because they’re bigots. You seem to agree entirely that queer people are themselves graphically sexual just by existing with your disgustingly bigoted question above. Gross. Weird. When you meet someone who is gay does that put images of sex into your brain or something? That would be really weird and is really a you problem. What is wrong with you?

You are trying to wholesale refute a literature review of several dozen studies using an opinion piece written by one guy. Well, hopefully he is an expert in the field of medicine or statistical analysis so let’s take a look and…… “Nathanael Blake, Ph.D. is a Fellow in the Life and Family Initiative at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. His research interests include American political theory, Christian political thought, and the intersection of natural law and philosophical hermeneutics. His published scholarship has included work on Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Alasdair MacIntyre, Russell Kirk and J.R.R. Tolkien.” …..LOL That is the best you have to counter a literature review of several dozen studies? A hack writing puff pieces for an Institute that is overtly philosophically opposed to transgender people? He also considers the use of the Oxford comma to be optional and therefore deserves to be tried for heresy. No, the debate exists because there are ideological reasons to believe ROGD exists and what you post just dances around the fact that there is no credible evidence of it existing. The only evidence are from online polls of parents of transgender minors who (based on where the polls were conducted) didn’t want their children to transition. The mother of all sampling biases. “Where there is hemming and hawing there must be something behind it.” “So can we see actual data?” “No.” We pulled a paper for not being credible but here is why you should trust it anyways. Such brainrot. It is not. It is eight years old at this point and there is still no data backing it up. I get why you want to hold onto it. It tells you what you want to believe. That being queer is contagious. It is a popular lie. Like in the past how there were people saying (without evidence) that gay people can’t reproduce so they are recruiting or indoctrinating your children. Those complaining back then were trying their best to recruit and indoctrinate with conversion therapies and other flawed methodologies and ended up disproving their own point. Now it is happening again and you are falling for it again. Just stop and actually follow the data. Or stop listening to the groups that keep getting it wrong and want to convince you that this time it will be different.

That is not an answer to the actual question. I do find it funny that the people who scream the most about society’s obligation to support the traditional family seem to be working hard to make that structure economically infeasible so I kind of doubt that this is anything other than propaganda.

There is also NO excuse for pretending that is actually happening to any significant degree and the people wanting to censor stuff know it isn’t happening. That is the cover story. The goal is to remove books that suggests gay and other queer people exist from schools by saying that itself is pornography. This is an old tactic. During the earlier gay scares acknowledging that gay people existed was considered obscene. Also why would queer people even want hard core and explicit porn in schools? What is the supposed motive for this? It is a ridiculous accusation and it is kind of weird that people just believe it despite no evidence of some concerted campaign to ‘sneak’ porn into schools.

If you were using Bing then repentance in sackcloth and ashes is the only remedy. I got that bit from Chapter 5 of the Lorenzo Snow student manual in the old Teachings of the Prophets series. They got if form the June 1919 issue of the old Improvement Magazine. I am actually surprised you haven’t heard the story. I heard this quoted probably at least a dozen times growing up. I cut out the setup paragraph that was in the manual but all it does is provide the backstory of where Lorenzo Snow was and that he was watching children make clay spheres which….sounds really messy.

No, I don’t think it helps. I prefer the Homer Simpson one: Could Jesus microwave so hot that he himself could not eat it? That is just playing with language. The thing is if God speaking through his prophet says it is infinite but only infinite in a limited sense that is not an atheist trying to trip up a theist. That is God deliberately walking into the trap. I admit that could be a good analogy to what Jesus did in many ways I don’t think that is what the writer of the Book of Mormon was angling fo. I admit I have trouble with most of the interpretations. The big problem I have is the way the ancient world worked. Day laborers were the lowest of the low outside of actual slaves. They were necessary to an extent but they lived on the edge of subsistence. The daily pay rate was sufficient to keep someone alive for a few days but the work wasn’t consistent. Working for a wage was generally seen as a kind of degradation. It was mitigated a bit by the social status of the work you were doing but these were at the bottom. If it is meant as an analogy for the rewards for those who are exalted or going to heaven then getting paid that scant wage just seems really off. If they were paid ten or a hundred times the normal daily wage and the early laborers were resentful of the latecomers getting the same inflated wage it would fit more like the prodigal son. Also the whole interaction at the end makes the landowner look like a preening showoff. I can be generous to them if I want to. Also calling the day laborer “friend” comes across more as insulting. No landowner was an actual friend of a day laborer. So yeah, I have no idea what to do with this parable. It sounds like the kind of thing a wealthy or powerful person would write to make themselves sound generous. I remember one story I read where a man (who was telling the story) went to a very high end restaurant and the waiter did a great job. At the end of the meal the man demanded to speak to the manager. The waiter was visibly distressed and asked what he had done wrong. The man kept a stony face and insisted he had to speak to the manager. The waiter grew more nervous and was graciously but desperately wondering what was wrong and kept trying to find out how he had displeased the customer but the man just reiterated that he had to speak to the manager. The waiter fearfully got the manager and brought the manager out and the customer revealed that he just had to tell the manager what a wonderful job the waiter did. See, it is funny. The man scared the waiter he was in danger of losing his job which reinforced that the customer had a lot of power over the waiter’s future and gratified his own ego. Only to have a laugh later as the man showed what a fair person he is by not destroying the waiter’s life and was actually generously doing the waiter a favor by talking him up. So all that unnecessary stress and fear? Hilarious! Really the story was that the teller is a huge jerk who loves lording his power over other people and ten convinces himself he is good for not using it to abuse others on at at least some occasions. So part of me hopes the whole parable was made up somewhere along the way by some well educated rich guy who wrote Matthew or Q or wherever it came from and Jesus didn’t say anything like it. The whole thing just feels distasteful. The infinite (but actually infinite only in the finite constraints of what it actually covers) atonement you mean? God did consult with me. I am being flippant in response to your sarcasm in one way but in another I am being very serious. God knows the end from the beginning meaning at the creation of the world he saw this interaction and even more how I would be confused by this description when some would posit an infinite number of infinite atonements, each covering a finite world or ‘round of creation’ or whatever. God knew how I would take this and went ahead with it anyways. So…….God is okay with the misunderstanding I guess. I mean, really this is kind of an indictment of the whole concept of scripture more than anything and I do often wonder why God would choose this incredibly weird and very limited method of communication knowing how badly humans would mangle it. I suppose it could be argued that that is just how humans are but that in itself makes it even more God’s fault as He claims to have designed us. So when God complains about people misusing scripture as if it is the fault of the humans I have to ask in response: “What did you think was going to happen?” I was terrified of it whenever I thought of it for decades. Now I am not convinced it even exists. You are arguing that you should be scared therefore the deception God deliberately used is okay. That is just the thing. The Lord wasn’t careful to say that until that revelation came and he doesn’t say it was wrong. The Lord justifies using misleading language because the emotional impact would be better for His purposes. In other words God will deceive us if He thinks it is the best thing for us. That might not be as scary as an endless hell but it is pretty scary. I would hope that was true but I had no reason to believe or disbelieve it. If God is willing to deceive in order to scare us I suspect that means such progression is possible. If that progression is possible I imagine revealing that would allow many to ‘rest on their laurels’ so keeping it ambiguous might be to God’s benefit to stimulate people to action out of fear of missing out. If that progression is not possible then sharing that information would stimulate those same people to action and probably even more so as they can’t hope for that progression. So it seems like it is more advantageous to God to keep it ambiguous if that progression is possible. Since God is willing to be unclear in order to trick us into doing ‘the right thing’ it seems more likely that the progression is possible as that gains a larger advantage in ambiguity and the alternative seems it would give an advantage via revealing it. You can continue this to comedic levels: So therefore it is likely that this theory is true. Or did God know I would figure this out and did this to throw me off? So it isn’t true. But then I know God might do that so what if I see through it. But by definition God knows I would see through that via His omniscience and therefore it will always be the opposite of what I deduce it to be. So the only way to figure it out is to follow the rabbit hole until I am satisfied I am correct and then believe the opposite. Unfortunately God would know I would do that so I have to do the opposite of that opposite. Then continue until brain melts. I have a shirt that reads “Can’t think straight” in bright rainbow pride and bisexual pride flag colors. Expecting me to think straight is not being respectful of my culture.

Many of them did get bullied and harassed.

You seriously used those as your Google search terms? “‘President Brimhall, these children are now at play, making mud worlds, the time will come when some of these boys, through their faithfulness to the gospel, will progress and develop in knowledge, intelligence and power, in future eternities, until they shall be able to go out into space where there is unorganized matter and call together the necessary elements, and through their knowledge of and control over the laws and powers of nature, to organize matter into worlds on which their posterity may dwell, and over which they shall rule as gods’” -Lorenzo Snow

I would argue that the depravity in the story of the Institute were the murderous book-burning Nazis and not the tiny marginalized population trying to quietly examine themselves and find a way to coexist peacefully with the rest of society. Just like today. One of my favorite historians likes to say that if your side is censoring, restricting, banning, or burning books you are on the wrong side of history.

I don’t appealing to some non-mathetmatical definition of “infinite” explains anything. This seems like a lot of words trying to make the infinite finite. There are a lot of ways that could have been expressed without using the word “infinite” in the Book of Mormon yet the word was used anyways. Is this one of those cases where God uses a ‘scare word’ like when He called hell endless in order to scare people but it was only true in a limited way so God was being sneaky and deceptive for rhetorical effect?

Counterpoint: All the stuff Lorenzo Snow said about it. Of course no one claimed to fully understand it. That is moving the goalposts. Many, especially Lorenzo Snow, talked about planetary construction and ruling over them.