Calm

Context matters. Just because in almost every other circumstance saying “I love you” means someone cares in a positive way doesn’t mean we need to take an “I love you” from someone beating us up seriously.

References please. The search function isn’t working for me or rather the links aren’t working and the only thing for “telestial” that is coming appears to be referring to the telestial kingdom or its glory. I know general membership (what would be the technical term for those not General Authorities or Officers since “lay” doesn’t really work since our leadership isn’t trained in seminaries, our male general membership are ordained, and now most adults are called as “ministers”) sometimes use it this way, but don’t remember it being published by the Church this way and if so, seems like it leads to unnecessary confusion, contrary to scripture, of what the kingdom actually is, a wonderful and pure place, not a place full of wickedness or corruption. Not debating its use at this point, just want the info to know what my expectations and understanding of the word should be. If it’s used officially this way, I will just add it to salvation and other words that have gotten confusing due to imprecise use in scripture or by leaders in our faith and try to remember to include context so it’s clear which I am talking about so no one is confused (I will always use it for the kingdom and related, but I don’t expect people to track my definitions, lol). If it’s not used officially to mean the fallen world, then I will probably continue to point out this usage contradicts scripture and might be best to be avoided to avoid confusion as Telestial is already confusing enough to nonmembers as a unique word in LDS vernacular.

There are ways to make it comfortable. I have a pad that wraps around where it hits my neck. Used to get irritations there and was constantly pulling on it. Don’t even notice it anymore. This is just an example, not specifically recommending it. https://www.amazon.com/Universal-Comfortable-Backpack-Shoulder-Automotive/dp/B0C6DTT5MJ/

I will pass this on. They put a lot of work into trying to get this to work well each year. I am sure they will be happy that the result this year showed that effort.

He quotes the Bible that says flesh and blood are corrupt, but then allows flesh to be quickened even though it’s labeled as corrupt. Why not blood? I believe this is a case of him reasoning, not revelation as he is showing the reasoning he did. I think his reasoning is faulty to make that conclusion. Not claiming there is blood, my position is we don’t have enough info for that conclusion. I don’t believe we actually have that much info on our actual eternal physical bodies’ operation. What can be perceived and understood by mortal eyes even in a quickened state may be a very limited view of the reality. Blood is symbolic of life and is used to purify. We drink a symbol of blood as part of our purification/union with God ritual, the Sacrament. How can blood be inherently corrupt to the point it can’t function in a kingdom of glory or even why would blood be seen symbolically as inherently corrupt by God and yet he cleanses us of sin with his blood, possibly symbolically, possibly literally. I understand that blood is also a sign of mortality, which an be seen as a condition due to physical corruption. But the fact that is can symbolize both corruption and what purifies us of corruption indicates to me blood itself is not inherently corrupt.

I do not doubt it. Lots of speculation, some horrible (past Old Testament study guide on creation) has been published in manuals. Thankfully the Church has been correcting that over time. Joseph Fielding Smith unfortunately presented some of his own speculation as doctrine and rejection of such as false doctrine when even that speculation contradicted previous prophets’ positions or at least were extensively published under their direction. So while I recognized it has been taught and likely still is, I see no reason to accept it as truth myself since it is not consistently or logically explained. Nor is my salvation dependent on that detail. https://benspackman.com/2023/08/the-power-of-good-historiography-or-how-joseph-fielding-smith-unwittingly-undermined-joseph-fielding-smith/ This talk was also given in the Tabernacle, iirc. I can accept Joseph Fielding Smith as prophet and still believe he taught some false doctrine. He established that precedent for me. (See bold in quote)

Google says that’s a liquor. (Added: Chat agrees with you) This is what it gave me старший starshiy https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/старший Chat gave a different word last night. I will see if I can find it. added: here’s the appraisal of the claim by Chat: ”The usual Russian LDS translation of Elder is старейшина (stareyshina). The ordinary Russian meaning is essentially “elder,” “senior/respected member,” or “leader of a community.” It comes from the root associated with being old/eldest. Russian dictionaries do not give “wizard” or “magician” as a meaning. There is another Russian word, старец (starets), meaning an old/respected man and, particularly, a religious elder, monk, or spiritual guide. That’s a very important word in Russian Orthodox culture because of the tradition of the starets—a spiritually gifted elder regarded as having unusual wisdom or insight”

It has 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.