Awhile back Zen explained in the comments why consecration is a principle of salvation. It’s worth repeating. (more…)
“At the time of the ground-breaking, Mayor Michael Nutter hailed the project at 18th and Vine Streets for its projected infusion of millions of dollars into the local economy, as well as the 300 construction jobs it would create.
“Church officials contend the worship site is much-needed to serve the Philadelphia area’s estimated 35,000 parishioners.”
. . .
“The temple’s building contracts also give hiring preference to union-affiliated Mormon workers in the Philadelphia region. But none could be found, aside from one carpenter who may join the team when his skills are needed during the project’s later stages.” (link via Millennial Star)
FoJG T. Greer has a great post at the Scholar’s Stage on the works on his re-read shelves. You’ll want to check it out, especially his LDS material. He has several conference talks listed that I’m glad he brought to my attention.
Greer suggests that there are three kinds of books on the re-read shelves.
those read again for the sake of “intellectual learning,” as you say it, or perhaps poetically, the books that enlighten;
books reread for purely for amusement or escape, the books that entertain;
and last of all, books that gives us snap shots of the beautiful or sublime, that increase our capacity to feel sorrow for the sorrowful or inspire us to the greater deeds of greater men – or in short, the books that edify.
I think he’s right. The object of this exercise is to share with our friends here or over at Greer’s place the books you re-read,the movies you rewatch, etc., that enlighten or edify. (more…)
A perceptive article on the gay rights movement and the gay marriage movement. Points out that the movement is mostly about putting a hedge around the sexual revolution for heterosexuals.
Bad people always support each other—that is their great strength. Zhilinsky had Sukhomlinov. He had patrons still higher up . . . .
Samsonov did not envy men like Zhilinsky their advancement, but whenever he thought of it he was deeply troubled: there were difficult times ahead for Russia, and when they came all these glittering schemers would be gone with the wind, never to be heard of again.
-From Solzhenitsyn’s Red Wheel: August 1914
[Regular readers know I try to derive sophomoric humor from taking on the character of a lumbering seven-foot-tall asthmatic-villain-American who dresses in black plastic armor and has medical issues. (more…)
Brother KB is a friend of the Junior Ganymede who posted a thoughtful guest post some time back. He has now written a series of essays, with photographs, on what sounds like a once-in-a-lifetime summer vacation. Readers with a taste for geology may find it interesting.
While Feminists are a humorless bunch, any attempts by men to explain any shortcomings are immediately shouted down as vile, sexist misogyny. It is called man-splaining. Never mind, that that happens to be men’s native conversation style and would be treating them like a man.
But if a woman, or a group of intelligent women, disagree with the party line of Feminism, and start a Tumblr called, “Women Against Feminism”, and explain that they are neither victims nor oppressed, you can expect all kinds of hell to be stirred up. I will forbear the most vicious links against them, but will share ones that are still illuminating.
Hell hath no fury is not reserved purely for men who scorn women, and the most vicious, hateful name-calling is being used against them.
Feminists are insistent they don’t understand what Feminism really is while the ‘rebel scum’ insist that modern Feminism does nothing to resemble the dictionary definition. And appearently women don’t like Fem-splaining any better than Man-splaining.
: the act of showing respect and love for a god especially by praying with other people who believe in the same god : the act of worshipping God or a god
: excessive admiration for someone
-thus Webster’s. (more…)
She and her late husband both thought that the main purpose of education was to produce citizens–which meant people hostile to authority.
-from Solzhenitsyn’s Red Wheel:August 1914 (more…)
I think this is a proper rejoinder to anyone who attacks you or accuses you of hating them, or tries to shame you for commenting, when you publicly disagree with something that they have publicly stated/written/published.
From Meg Stout: (Her comment of July 23, 2014, 5:25 am, if the link does not take you directly there.)
” … to openly attack and demean the organization from which one has parted makes the matter public record.
And when something is a matter of public record, it appears within my [F]irst [A]mendment rights to comment on the public record. As it is within your rights to comment on my comment. However it is not within your rights to force the owners of [a blog or forum] to give you bandwidth on their website. “