Calm

It has (added: sort of has if one squints) the connotation of wise spiritual leader according to wiki (I checked after I posted, but forgot to add that). Not surprising it got misinterpreted for them, maybe someone thought wizard meant wise one….or maybe a Russian was teasing them or maybe it was wishful thinking by an elder that wanted something besides religious and national prejudice to explain the evil eye signs and harassment. Just being obviously Americans preaching an American faith (in Russians’ view) was more than enough to explain that behaviour from my own experience.

Back when we lived in Kansas, my husband attended a very tragic funeral of a three year old. Everyone else was strapped in but her. She was dancing and laughing in the backseat seat having a blast and entertaining everyone. Mom was only going ten miles an hour due to slow traffic but a car crossed the line, also not going that fast, and there was a head on (obviously not a full one, more corners hitting iirc). I think the combined speed was only 20, 25 mph. The kid just got jerked in the wrong way and snapped her neck. You can just never really predict when it’s going to get dangerous. Keep those seatbelts on and kids in their car seats.

I am trying to understand why you went here in response to my question of why lewdness in general wouldn’t be sufficient given Smac’s concerns about sexualized live adult shows (a concern I share with him, though I think recorded ones should be ideally treated the same where possible as while live might be more shocking I assume, recorded can be made more appealing since it’s easier to fake stuff, harder to see the reality). The analogy implies I am trying to get people to accept something they normally wouldn’t and shouldn’t accept. But I am at a loss on what you think I was trying to do. The analogy is slow exposure to something lethal means easier to accept it, which can be true for humans I believe even if not with frogs and hot water. It’s part of the reason why I find the one f-word allowed as long as it’s an expletive in a pg 13 movie ridiculous. If the claim is one time use is going to be less likely to be repeated…the time I heard the most repetitions of an expletive from a movie was when Data used profanity just that once in Generations (think that’s the one). The restriction was laughable in its result, has the opposite effect as intended. The expletive gets placed as a punchline typically and therefore quoted. If you can only use it once, make it count. I am quite concerned with a lot of modeling using minors in provocative dress and poses. Though my guess it’s more the adults surrounding the kids that get sexualized so to speak than the kids, while the kids seeing the ads might choose the clothes, it’s the adults seeing that choice as provocative, the kids as sexual (what is sexual in clothing depends on cultural standards and if one hasn’t learned those standards yet, why would you respond to it as sexual? Anyone here find rolling eyes or tiny, bound female feet as a signal of sexuality?) The only thing that occurs to me for why you posted this is when I asked if there was ways to avoid having nonsexualized drag shows targeted perhaps you inferred I meant something…but I only asked that question because Smac said this: To me this means that Smac does not see all drag as inherently lewd and therefore, it’s not “is it drag?” that is the standard that needs to be measured, but “is it lewd?”. So I am not understanding why one needs to specify drag at all if the issue is lewdness. If something is lewd in drag, surely it’s lewd in straight attire as well? I am asking for clarification on why drag needs to be included in a lewdness law from Smac and anyone else legally inclined. I certainly, most definitely agree that there should be rules about lewdness and I wish our culture had stricter social standards for adults. Even if I don’t believe somethings are inherently lewd, if something has been defined as lewd by a culture I don’t think people should be able to accidentally run across it when they don’t choose to do so and that includes children. I also believe our culture is really messed up by making somethings that should be just a common every day activity lewd…like breastfeeding.

I am guilty of killing frogs by slowly raising water temp before, it is true. Don’t have to experiment any more to figure it out how to best do it. Found a real easy solution, plus it’s also the only way that actually works. At water temps above 90°F, put a lid on that pot. Otherwise when it hits 85°F, fast or slow, they will be out of there, if not before. Btw, once they die at 90°F due to extended high temp exposure, it will just be gross and idiotic if you wait till the water boils to test for death. Unless what you are really aiming for is a plate of frog legs (bad choice though apparently as boiling frog legs turn them rubbery, pan frying is better). Our aquarium thermostat broke in the night apparently and I came down to 6 frogs floating on their backs having croaked. Tongues were even hanging out. Otoh, the fish were in ecstasy moving faster than I have ever seen before or since. I learned that day frogs won’t wait passively in the water until it is boiling no matter how slowly the temp rises. They will be long dead before the water starts to bubble. Alas, even without the cover where they would have likely jumped out no matter how slowly the temp rose, their fate still would be death. Had one jump out before we got the cover. Was not a happy camper. Frog in boiling water story is so wrong on so many levels…..https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog. Above 100°F means instant thermal shock and death (water boils at 212° F). Actual biology gets in the way of some good stories, doesn’t it? Need to come up,with a better analogy. ——— Back to what you actually mean even if using a faulty metaphor to accuse me…. Gave up trying to persuade people and change their minds long, long ago. Never saw it happen, so why put energy into it? I do invest in sharing accurate information for the fun of it, but people choose for themselves how they want to use it. Trying to understand others’ thoughts, reasonings, motivations, and intentions is all I try to accomplish these days.

I think an issue could be that for some people these days, any drag performance is sexualized (not claiming it is for you)….otherwise why isn’t just the accusation of lewdness enough to control sexualized performances? Are there ways to avoid mild drag shows not to be targeted without their having to spend money to defend themselves (either the performer or the venue)?

People who record while driving….I just don’t get it. Besides the urge to look at the phone instead of the road, even if one is looking at the road, one is actively thinking about something else. And if one has a script one has in mind, that’s can get to neglecting the road. Just casually talking while driving, responding to someone is not as intense of a focus and that can still cause accidents (not saying no one should talk or listen to audiobooks, that’s not going to happen and isn’t necessary and can even help stay alert; just stay aware of how involved you are getting). My not appreciated lifelong headaches were caused by an accident when my grandmother drove off the freeway and hit a ditch when I was 13 because she turned to talk to my siblings in the backseat. I am alive or at least not with a face full of scars because of my seatbelt, but the dashboard was hard enough. And kids apparently didn’t used to get whiplash. I learned early to view cars as lethal weapons. Still get images of what might have been without that seatbelt. Not pretty. What a tragedy.

Yeah, we had a problem two days ago trying to turn while the car oncoming just zoomed through the yellow (I live in south of Provo for newbies). Dangerous. Thankfully my husband was paying more attention to the cars than the light at that point…actually that happened the day before as well. My husband was very verbal the previous day. Daughter was in the car the second day and she is very sensitive to anger/frustration when driving, so he kept it in his head that time. We have cured him of speeding up, tailgating, and flashing lights as that could cause an accident itself. I am okay with one or two honks and some verbal abuse, but she had a few episodes with her dad as a kid, so he has to be extra cool with her. My husband born and raised in Utah Valley. Drivers and sports are the only things he expresses anger with. Otherwise very mellow and gentle. I have not been impressed with Utah drivers over the years, but maybe my experience with Grandma driving down from SLC biased me.

I think there has been some foolish road design choices myself.

I can’t attend conferences anymore (and haven’t been keeping up with list discussions this summer as finding it hard to concentrate these days), but this places it in a context that makes it very immediate for me.

This seems strange given our teaching of the light of Christ which would indicate in at least some ways we should depend on our internal perceptions of right and wrong and not automatically take a man’s word no matter who they are that they can tell us better than the gift of the light of Christ what God wants us to do. Our need to harmonize teachings throughout time gets in the way imo of learning to trust the light of Christ.

Seems like they would have to self identify as a woman in all contexts where possible though, not just the one of the sport? Are they willing to do so?

Well mentioned. This can happen as you mentioned as well to anyone who deviates from the traditional norms. I would rephrase it as differences rather than disabilities as not all are dysfunctional or a system that isn’t working in the way it’s meant to, some may be a different type of system (autism can be dysfunctional if it interferes with communication and self care, but isn’t inherently so). Plus there are roles (single and/or childless) that are common in any society, but still may not fit smoothly into the ‘norm’ the Church teachings typically focus on, which are those who aim for heterosexual marriage (usually in the temple, but could function in most day to day church stuff without being temple ready) straight from youth, achieve this goal, and have kids. Then once empty nesters and retired, they are healthy and free enough to either go on a mission or serve at home. However, if always single or they become widowed, it is harder from what I hear to feel there is a place one naturally fits in the Church. This has and is continuing to change as we have had single women as General Officers, my divorced sister just got called as RS President for example. We don’t have single bishops as far as I am aware, but I assume it’s not an issue for EQ presidents. I wonder if a never married man can be a General Authority though. Anyone know? And if not in a lifetime calling, would they be released if their wife died? From what I have been told those not currently married sometimes have great difficulty feeling they are valued. Much depends on the bishop and whether he will considered someone without children or not married a calling with youth or other leadership. Given the larger numbers of unmarried in the Church these days, I suspect there will be a higher rate of adaptation for inclusion of at least some outside the traditional married with children norm than there has in the past.

What are the implications of the above in your view beyond the Church has great value in God’s eyes both now and for eternal purposes…and therefore we should value it as well?

Is this all her being at least in part snide or trying to put pressure on Brigham or maybe humiliate him in retaliation for whatever? Otherwise it almost sounds like there is some mental dysfunction there as it’s more than eccentric, it’s irrational at times.

I can see devoid of sin, but there is nothing inherently evil about death as long as life follows from it imo. Same with chaos, especially if one understands that what looks chaotic in the world has underlying order, follows certain patterns or the earth itself would not exist in any form.

The Telestial kingdom is a kingdom of glory, a kingdom of God. Not sure you should be using “Telestial” here linking it with debased and carnal.

I have company that just arrived, so I had AI polish it up for me as I don’t have time to reread and check stuff, the points are all mine: The heat and energy involved in bringing that much mass together would be a problem if the goal was to preserve all those individual pieces intact. Once you have anything approaching enough mass to make a planet, gravity takes over. Everything is pulling on everything else, material is falling and colliding, and all that motion and compression generates enormous heat. You’d expect melting, mixing, and eventually differentiation, with heavier material sinking toward the center and lighter material moving outward. So if God wanted to keep the pieces, fossils, geological structures, etc. intact, He would actually have to prevent many of the natural processes that would happen when you bring that much mass together. And what would be the benefit of keeping the bits and pieces intact anyway? If God was going to use material from old planets, why not bring the material together and let it go through the natural processes that would occur when enough mass forms a planet? He could accelerate or direct those processes if necessary. Gravity, heat, melting, differentiation, etc. would actually help produce a functioning planet. Plus, where the different planets were joined together, you’d expect some sign of differences. Different planets should have different geological and chemical histories. We’d potentially see differences in minerals, isotopes, radiometric ages, etc. Instead, Earth’s rocks show remarkably interconnected geological relationships. The fossil problem seems even bigger. If the fossils came from other planets, then the organisms represented by them would have lived and evolved on those planets with likely different chemical signatures. Why would fossils from completely different worlds happen to fit together into a coherent sequence that looks like the history of life on Earth? Of course, God could do all of this. That’s not really my argument. My question is: why would He? He would have to bring pieces of other planets here after having first arranged identical to our own solar environments for each, preserve them in spite of the enormous forces involved in assembling a planet, keep their fossils and geological histories intact, make the different pieces compatible, and then make the resulting planet function as though it had developed as one coherent world. That’s a massive amount of extra work to accomplish what exactly? If the purpose is to make a young Earth look old, then we’re left with an uncomfortable theological problem: God would have deliberately constructed the physical evidence so that its natural interpretation would be a false history. Why? To tease us? If God uses natural processes we don’t yet understand to accomplish things we call miracles, that’s one thing. But deliberately making the Earth look as though it has a history it doesn’t actually have seems like something quite different. So I’m not saying God couldn’t make Earth from prefabricated pieces like a jigsaw puzzle. I’m asking why He would choose such a complicated process when He could simply use the natural processes involved in planetary formation—accelerating or directing them if necessary—and produce the coherent, functioning planet we actually observe.

I agree completely with this above. I think the “no blood in immortal bodies” is speculation. “Flesh and bones” just doesn’t mention blood, it also doesn’t mention cartilage, tendons, brain tissue, nerves, organ tissue, and more. Are we assuming those also don’t exist in immortal bodies? The only thing revealed in scripture that specifically refers to excluding blood iirc also refers to flesh, so it must mean something besides immortal bodies can’t include blood. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians 15%3A50&version=NIV

We have never been popular with the Russia government. We were over in Moscow during the elections where one candidate included us in his list of religions to be banned. The guy was a jerk anyway so didn’t hurt my feelings. 😛 Treatment of Saints by government qualifies as outright persecution. When we were there in 93 and 95, there was active hate and refusal to interact with Americans (we put Canadian flags on everything, legit since we lived in Canada at the time even if American citizens). Elders*** were often followed by gangs and one pair told us the “hooligans” (what the locals called the juvenile gangs with nothing better to do besides harass passersby) actually attacked them. Nothing major but I was grateful my son didn’t end up there like I thought might happen because if his stays there and interactions with Russians over the years through family. Didn’t help one of my husband’s friends was assassinated by mafia backed by the Moscow mayor and my in laws were warned by the US gov they would not be able to be protected once they got threatened when they tried to resist their travel company being grabbed by the mafia (they walked away from it). I don’t know how the ones on the street feel about Americans these days. They might have hated us, but they were wanting to consume anything they could get from Hollywood, our music, etc, so I wonder if that opened to more positive feelings outside the government. I admire any Russian Saint who stays active in the faith. ***we were told “elder” implies something like “magician” in Russian, so old women were always make a protection sign when they saw the elders coming. Never double-checked that. They also got spat on a lot. Typically they laughed it off, but they did take refuge at our place once when a gang was following them a little too aggressively. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fig_sign I wonder if this is what they meant, only a dark version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starets

Ouch!?!

I have done it myself for stuff online and known others who have as well, in one case I know it was changed based on the input, can’t remember in other cases. Doing so resulted in my being part of a survey group (covered something unrelated, but obviously it showed they appreciated rather than ignored my input).

Given the apparent eagerness (based on investment) of the government to prosecute, seems like it’s a good assumption that the charges would not have stood up and that is why they weren’t filled.

I find it’s a good idea to refresh the page before writing a post and if a long post, copy it before hitting submit just in case the “are you a robot” or other spam blocker function kicks in because it’s been too long since the last verification of my sentience. Refreshing doesn’t always work, but seems to catch most of them.

I don’t understand. Analytics’ example showed a drag show being investigated under the earlier statue, Why wouldn’t that demonstrate sufficiency in covering drag shows?

My guess is this is what Meldrum (Iknew he was young earth and hoped he mentioned it somewhere) believes because he dismisses the age scientists give for fossils because fossilization over long periods of time has never been observed directly, in the lab or out of it. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1808&context=msr Also AI (this is an accurate summary according to the ideas I have seen from this very unfortunate model):