Matthew J. Tandy

They do work, but the size is a serious limit.

Yeah, they aren't huge, but since I just moved down to Texas and am in a rental for a bit, I don't want anything too hard to move in the future. Takes a bit to adjust to not owning the home I am living in!

I hope you visited Sylvia's website (I linked to it in an earlier post).

Sure did. And then some. Spent about 40 hours researching, watching vids, etc.:-)

Probably going to try and start my aquaponis system in the next week. Looking at using IBC/Totes for an initial container. Any photos yet Lehi?

I suppose we could even find members of the Church who dislike funeral potatoes

I dislike funeral potatoes. Like the cheese, not a fan of the cream, especially in the regions where it's cream of mushroom instead of cream of chicken. :-)

My prediction is worth nothing, and only for playing a game.

However, I assume he will link to lds.org or mormon.org, and then various articles therein from conference talks, including from apostles, such as Elder Oaks. This would be very Mormon authorized, and the statements would be from men engaged full-time in the growth of the LDS Church.

I thouight of this video in relation to this thread...

Stop It!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYLMTvxOaeE

I posted about this on my facebook page this morning. It's in line with what you said Smac. Here is what I said:

Bill Maher is a moron, as always, but I thought I would address one of his more recent stunts that make give atheists and agnostics everywhere a bad name (really, if atheist's could excommunicate for poor representation, the should make him a candidate).

Problem 1) People of the LDS faith do not perform baptism by proxy that makes anyone Mormon. It's performance of an ordinance that turns a key for them, but they don't have to go through the door in LDS theology. They are not listed as members, current, former, or future after a proxy baptism.

Problem 2) LDS people perform such ordinances by proxy out of love and a hope born of love. Bill Maher obviously did his thing just to mock. Even if an outside party views both as silly, the purpose behind the action is noticeabley different. Maher doesn't believe that what he does has any ramifications spiritually, since he doesn't believe in spirit. Thus his sole goal is to be offensive and mocking. LDS proxy ordinances may be offensive to some (although it's rare when understood), but it's certainly not the goal.

Problem 3) I'm not offended. I realize my faith has somehow been mocked, but most LDS are going to look at him as a clueless idiot, mainly for the two reasons I listed above. None of us think what he did has any power, and neither does he. What, does he expect us to go perform another proxy-baptism? What a maroon. He's only made himself look more like a bigot or a C-grade comedian.

Lehi,

Thanks for all the replies. Still looking for one more item:

Also, what are you using to contain the fish? Is it glass, a "tote" container type thing that's been reinforced externally, or something else? Just trying to get ideas!

I am trying to get ideas, as I want to do something in my garage later this year.

...not too much fat (but what it has is omega-3).

Lehi

Actually, that was the problem I read about them. Lower in Omega-3, higher in Omega-6, which is not a good ratio:

http://www.genesmart.com/pages/tilapia_omega_3_nutrition/84.php

However, it appears the problem can be overcome in a good aquoponics system, as it states the reason for the problem thus:

The problem with tilapia nutrition is what the fish are eating. Tilapia omega 3 Levels are so low because Tilapia are incredibly hardy, which means that you can feed them just about anything as a fat source. What we’re feeding them is corn oil, or soy, or whatever the cheapest commodity is at the time, packed with short-chain omega 6 fats that they convert to the dangerous long-chain omega-6 fats (AA). Normally herbivore fish eat algae, which contain medium-chain omega 3 fats that they convert to the very beneficial long chain omega 3s including EPA and DHA. Carnivorous fish then eat those fish as their source of omega 3 fats. Humans eat both types of fish.

So, perhaps feeding them algae, the black soldier fly larva, etc, will set things more in there natural order.

ERayR,

I suppose that's true. I don't know if I've ever had tilapia, so I can't say what my preference is. I do quite like trout. If large-mouth Bass was possible, I would go for that.:-)

Lehi,

So your post has led me to reading a ton about aquaponics for the last week. In doing so, I was reading about fish choices. Trout vs Tilapia vs Catfish, etc. It appears the pros of tilapia are that they of course are easy to care for and breed easily. The downside is that they apparently are the least nutritious of the choices and have a Omega fatty acid ratio that removes a lot of the benefit of eating fish. Have you read about this? If so, do you plan on trying other fish species later? Just curious.

Also, what are you using to contain the fish? Is it glass, a "tote" container type thing that's been reinforced externally, or something else? Just trying to get ideas!

There you go again, replacing faith in God with faith in science.

I can't tell if this is tongue in cheek or not. If not, then your implication I am doing something "again" is odd, since I dont' comment much, and I doubt anything that would lead someone to assume "replacing faith in God with faith in science." Also, I think my posts were clear that I have faith that God uses science.

If it was in jest... well... I'm just overly sensitive.:-) A smiley helps to tell though.

but does anyone here think this interpretation is atypical or in conflict with any official position?

Mak, while I obviously don't believe in "magical" properties to them, I certainly know many older members, especially in the south, who beleive they are both physical and spiritual protection. Sometimes they have a story to back it up, someitmes even personal experience. I've never bothered to argue with anyone unless it was an intellectual discussion.

As far as I see it, it's irrelevent to the end result as I beleive in it. All parties agree that any protection is based on meeting the covenants they made. This immediately separates our use of garments and symbols from that of glyphs or wards. Glyphs or wards, such as the Ottoman rulers often ahd on their undergarments, were mystical/magical protection. They weren't based on personal adherence to covenants. The power is in the symbol, glyph, or ward in those cases. As I don't know of any member who beleives that about LDS garments, it means that anyone who wears them is trying to follow Christ, and thus are protected by whatever ultimate means God intends.

Garden Girl, Blackstrap: I addressed the Marriott fire issue previously in the thread. Blackstrap, the same principle applies to your father's incidence. It is pure science as to how both were protected at the moment. What is left to theology is whether or not God anticipated this effect as a form of protection. I would assume he uses such techniques through foresight. But that is different than mystical protection from the garment itself.

Mercyngrace: I actually haven't ever done the scrub raw bit. In my mind it's excess, as it opens me up to more direct infections from germs. Logically it jsut doesn't work for me.:-) I do know some people though who are like that, and it's tough for them and their loved ones.

Calmoriah: I carry bottles around in my car, have them at home, and at the office. I can't afford to use the more expensive per ounce travel sprays. But I would if I could.:-) I also have a small bottle I carry to certain places I feel I'll want it on my person.

My biggest pet peeve is any public place that has the trashcan far away from the exit doors, or none in the space between sets of doors like in some ward buildings. It leaves me with the option of walking around with a wad of paper towels in my pocket, tossing the napkins just after opening the door and hoping I make the trash and catch the door with my foot, or not using anything (or using my shirt, which I can't always do). I don't leave trash on the ground that I have placed there, so the tossing thing can result in several tries.

hah, Ray jsut mentioned the same Marriott example seconds before I posted mine. Fun stuff.

I chose B. I put together a paper once that you may be interested in Mak. Everyone here may be. Sadly, it's mostly handwritten, and I haven't transcribed it yet to PC. It's been a while. Anyway, the short of it is that the garment, in scripture, is a physical representation of the garments or robes of "light" that are seen or referenced in conjunction with angels, gods, and faithful spirits. This spiritual garment is maintained in scripture by righteousness and waxes and wanes in relation to that righteousness. It is, itself, incorruptible. The physical garments remind us of the spiritual, and the symbols remind us of the covenants we must follow to maintain the spiritual protection.

In the paper, I explore an interesting evolution of the thoughts surrounding the garments in LDS history. Soon after Joseph's death, a member of the 1st Quorum of the Seventy said in a conference in Salt Lake that the reason Joseph died was because he took his garments off before he left (Joseph did in fact do this, as he did not want the sacred garment ridiculed or abused upon his death), and that had he not done so he would still have been alive. So the thought of physical protection, and speculation, started pretty early. However, the one thing my research shows is that revelation on the matter has not been received, but people have taken from the ceremonies what they want. The scriptures, being the only doctrinal source of commentary we have on it, again indicate it is spiritual.

There are a few notable modern instance of physical protection. One particular one I looked in to was that of Willard (or maybe it was Bill) Marriott from an interview on a Dateline or 20/20 back in the 1990's. In it he describes an experience wherein he was caught in a fire and had severe burns, including all of his clothes. Except his garments. They were dirty, but unburned, and his skin was only a little pink underneath. This certainly seems miraculous. However, this is actually a common phenomenon. Slightly or heavily overweight people, who are wearing non-synthetics (such as cotton) that are tightly held to the body, create a system of heat redistribution and protection. The simplest way to see this in action is to take a cotton handkerchief and wrap it tightly around a quarter, such that one face of the quarter is completely covered by a section of the cloth that is smooth and taught. Then take a match, candle, or lighter to it. It won't burn. A lot of time it won't even turn grey or black. But take that same cloth even a little away from the quarter surface, light a match, and up it goes in flames.

Here is where it gets tricky though: You cannot simply say that shows that Mr. Marriott did not receive physical protection from God by virtue of his garment. While it can be shown the mechanics by which he was saved, it can be argued that God knows that mechanic, being all knowing, and took that into account as a way to offer protection. You can't disprove it, and it doesn't even seem unreasonable. So the physical protection was not mystical or magical, but it could still be divinely inspired.

1) I am a high-functioning germophobe (ie, Mysophobia). Started when I was about seven. Essentially, the thought of bacteria not my own freaks me out. I don't sit on public toilets without about 5 minutes of sanitizing them first, even if I know they are in the low traffic, password secured ones of my office that are cleaned regularly. I only open public bathroom doors and most bathroom doors of private homes with a napkin, towel, or part of my shirt. If I am passing out from dehydration, I will not take a sip of your drink if you already have. Or eat food you bit out of unless it's a very dry food and I cut a large section off (and even then, it's a rarity). It took me a while to share food with my wife, and I absolutely do not share licks on a candy from my toddler, or take bites of his food, etc. I know that a lot of people still don't wash their hands after using the restroom (or flush for that matter), especially guys. It makes it hard for me to shake hands, and if I know for a fact you don't wash, I will do everything I can to avoid touching you or being touched by you. Being touched by someone who doesn't wash their hands leads to mental screaming until they are gone and I can do something to alleviate some of my disgust. When I served in the nursery, I almost had a panic attack my first few weeks, and that nursery got sanitized very quick.

That said, I am a "high functioning" germaphobe because I don't let it control my life too much. I still shake hands all the time. I crawl around under houses and mess with sewage pipes. I'm in strange houses nearly every day, inspecting everything (I am a property manager). I don't tell people why I am not sharing their food, I simply say "No thank you, I'm fine". Most of it is screaming in my head, but outwardly, I keep trucking like a normal person. It's true that due to unique circumstances I have been trapped in a bathroom for a couple minutes, but eventually I work up the courage to deal with it and touch the door. I also am solely focused on human germs, not dirt or animals(except feces). I can roll around in the mud all day, work on cars, dogs can lick my face, etc. No problem. It's just human bacteria. I am also pretty much unaffected in comfortable surroundings. It's a fear of the invisible unknown I suppose.

Why did it start? Reading Rainbow. Yeah, you read that right. Reading Rainbow, with LeVar Burton. There was an episode they did on germs, bacteria, rates of spread and growth, etc. Taking bites out of a burger and coming back 24 hours later to study it under a microscope. Stuff like that. I was traumatized. This was solidified a few years later when Bill Nye the Science Guy did a similar show. So you can thank PBS for my problems.:-)

2) I have a minor fear of the ocean. Not boating, fishing, etc. Just swimming past the point I can firmly place my feet or where there is a strong rip-tide. A couple of times I started to get sucked out, and I am not a good swimmer. It was quite terrifying and I only saved myself by pushing off strangers and family alike, which I feel terrible about. I was a little kid, but still. Lots of sea water was drunk...

As mentioned by Mak, most in academia use the NRSV for general accuracy. The KJV, with its poetic style if definitely one of the more pelassant reads. Young's Literal translation was useful at times for reference translating Hebrew into English, mainly because it largely ignores sentence restructuring.

None are perfect. We use the KJV in church because, as mentioned in the letter Cinepro psoted, it's quoted elsewhere. Changing to a newer version would be a major headache, lead to more disputes than it's worth, etc. Add in trying to incorporate the JST, which itself uses Jacobean English, and it becomes even more daunting.

For the record, I regularly use the JPS when teaching lessons heavy in the Old Testament, even if some of their translations are wonky. Still better than the KJV, expecially with the side notes. I use the NRSV for accademic questions. I use the KJV for general spiritually uplifting study. I also use the Tanakh in Hebrew (Zondervan's Reader Edition) as general reading.

I don't push the issue with people generally. There has however bene a handful of times I have quietly taken aside seminary isntructors, missionaries, and teachers and EQ Presidents to discuss the use of the KJV in the church. THis is only done when they say something to an investigator or the class such as "All the other versions of the Bible are false and designed to promote ideals other than what the text says", or "We use the KJV because it is the most accurate translation."

Lehi,

That is one awesome system. Someday, I hope to have the money to do the same, and I'll be looking to you for advice!

The problem with much of the do-it-yourself setups is that it takes a deposit of cash. When $50 is hard to find, it becomes nearly impossible. Not completely. You can still to pot gardening and similar ideas to help get you familair with absic principles while waiting to be able to do bigger things, but larger scale things are not cheap. It takes money to become mostly self-sufficient.

Dan,

That was an excellent read. Makes me miss studying it for school. Business isn't nearly as mentally stimulating!

Like Bill, I would be thrilled to read the final product.

Kevin,

Thanks for sharing the Perry model. Interesting. I think it accurately (as far as one really can on such a complex issue) reflects possible positions adn steps along a person's psychological journey in the agnostic/aetheistic path. The loanguage itself is loaded to some degree, assigning one position as inferior to another. Accepting dualism is an infantile step to accepting relativism, etc. Any attempt to go from higher steps to lower is deemed regressive. However, if one were to in fact personally have a visit from God (ala Joseph Smith, John Taylor, etc), then that would essentially toss the steps up and down out the window. I understand you can rationalize those events of others or even yourself away, but it is a massive wrench nontheless. However, using this same framework is still possible within the position of faith. For isntance, I believe in the restoration and its inherent underlying principles of ethics. I also reject much fo what I consider dross (false tradition) in the church. I actively embrace people from a multitude of faiths and itneract with them regularly, not just Christian, but Islamic, Hindu, Jewish, Bahai, New Age, etc. In many complex ways I am at stage 9, while holding to other stages. As such, the Perry model is really mostly useful to analyze someone who is moving from a fundamentalist religious or moral position to one of rejection of the previous self, followed by embracing personal and world relativism (thus in a sense re-empowering them).

Never mind, I jsut found him.

Dale Broadhurst. Website is http://solomonspalding.com/. Easy enough.

Once upon a time, we had a regular psoter, whose name I now forget. He was formerly RLDS, and had a large (and disorganized) website of all of his colelcted data trying to show the spalding theory was valid. His website actually also ahd quite a few very useful recources not available elsewhere on the internet (he travelled extensively across the nation and made copies of everything he could find about early church history, including some hard to access diaries). I no longer remember his name. I know he was older, in poor health, and lived in Hawaii.

Anyone remember him? He was actually quite a nice gentlman.

As a highly related topic, I wrote a paper I keep meaning to submit to the Maxwell Institute showing that it is almost certain that Laman and Lemuel were functionally literate but did not ahve the ability read the scriptures themselves. Now don't take it, I wrote it.;-) The point though is that the evidence internally within the Book of Mormon further shows the uniqueness of Nephi and Lehi's ability to read specialized religious language.

That only the poor people were left is polemics of biblical writers. That is not how the Babylonians operated. you took key higher ups and raised them in your courts, so they could alter return and rule like other good Babylonians brought up in the Babylonian ways. Often times even the previous leaders (who didn't need to be made an example of) were left in place as vassal leaders. They didn't just go in and gut the place of money and capable people. they needed the land to be defensible and produce crops and industry. Babylonians only destroyed those who proved unfaithful (hence the later destruction of Jerusalem), or just enough to let their new vassals now whose boss. There were plenty of people who were left untouched in Babylonian conquests.