Anonymous comments are not welcome here and will not be approved.
Just so you know.
Don't even bother.
Why? I agree with this:
http://www.sixteensmallstones.org/comment-policy/
It's to your advantage, actually, as I always respond more reasonably and kindly--and sometimes even learn from--people with faces. Faceless people don't get the same respect.
Thursday, July 30, 2015
Monday, July 27, 2015
No mention of Christ?
I noticed that Kate Kelly doesn't really talk about Christ. Or Jesus. Or the atonement.
Yes, she's back. The lady who pushed Ordain Women, much to the chagrin of women all over the world who want to be taken seriously by other humans.
Ms. Kelly recently published an editorial encouraging people to abandon the church. "Hey--it's nice out here," is her basic message. "Come out and test the waters. It's so warm and safe and pretty."
But some of the things Kate Kelly says in her editorial are particularly "tricky" or troubling, undermining her invitation to leave for greener pastures, but also revealing and underlying lack of testimony that is not new to her writing, but is more apparent than ever before.
For example, Ms. Kelly says, "The decision for a person to stay active in the Mormon church should be based on an honest evaluation of its benefits." This would be reasonable if you were joining a gym or a quilting club. But for a church, the standard is much higher. It would be better to ask, "Is this true?"
Ms. Kelly also says, "I encourage Mormon women to ask themselves a similar question: does my participation in Mormonism spark joy?" That's a popular standard for decluttering a house (although flawed for that, too--whoever thought food storage or extra batteries 'spark joy'?). But childbirth does not spark joy, and it's worth every minute of the pain. Getting up to nurse all night does not spark joy. Cleaning toilets does not spark joy. Catching a child's vomit does not spark joy. Stepping on legos in the night doesn't spark joy. Having a child scream mean things at you for hours does not spark joy. Watching your child cry in pain or sorrow that you can't fix does not spark joy. There is not greater pain than parts of parenthood. But parenting is the most valuable, rewarding, important thing I've ever done. "Spark joy" is a stupid standard for deciding whether you want to participate in religion. Whether or not something sparks joy has nothing to do with how valuable it is in your life.
Ms. Kelly says, "It has been indescribably freeing for me to stop believing that men have control over whether or not I go to heaven." What?! I have no idea where she got that idea. Men never did have control over whether she goes to heaven. Unless she means God and Jesus, and they're doing everything they can to get her in, not keep her out. But getting to heaven is up to her, not men. And it always has been.
Ms. Kelly says, "I don't wish for Mormon women to follow me — or to follow anyone. I want them to follow their own hearts, aspirations and dreams." First of all, that's a lie. She does want women to follow her. Her actions make that abundantly clear. But, aside from that, really, shouldn't we want people to follow Jesus? Our thoughts, aspirations, and dreams often lead us to places we end up not wanting to be. Jesus is a better guide than we are ourselves. We're too blind. He can see more and farther--and He loves us.
Ms. Kelly says, "Put your faith in yourself and in women." Not in God? Not in Jesus? And what makes women any more worthy of our faith than men? They're all human, and humans don't have a great track record when it comes to being worthy of our faith.
Ms. Kelly says, "You can remove your name from the records of the church as a way to communicate to male church leaders why they can't keep you or others like you." See how she's all caught up in who has the power? The church leaders aren't trying to "keep you" (male or female leaders). They are trying to offer you something they find immensely valuable. If you don't want it, that's fine. They won't hate your for that.
Ms. Kelly says, "let church leaders know what the cost of their rigidity is." Clearly she does not believe what they have been saying all this time: they aren't being rigid; it's Jesus who is not bending to Ms. Kelly's will. The leaders are bound to follow Jesus. (Now, it's another question entirely whether you believe the apostles have access to Jesus and are following Him. But she's skipping that part.)
Ms. Kelly says, "Male leaders colonized our minds to make us think we had to play by their rules to be taken seriously." Nobody has colonized my mind. Who is she letting in to her head? (It sounds to me like feminism has colonized her mind, urging her to see oppression where it does not exist, and trying to convince all people everywhere that "patriarchy" is evil no matter what, even if God is the patriarch and Jesus is the one in charge....)
Yes, she's back. The lady who pushed Ordain Women, much to the chagrin of women all over the world who want to be taken seriously by other humans.
Ms. Kelly recently published an editorial encouraging people to abandon the church. "Hey--it's nice out here," is her basic message. "Come out and test the waters. It's so warm and safe and pretty."
But some of the things Kate Kelly says in her editorial are particularly "tricky" or troubling, undermining her invitation to leave for greener pastures, but also revealing and underlying lack of testimony that is not new to her writing, but is more apparent than ever before.
For example, Ms. Kelly says, "The decision for a person to stay active in the Mormon church should be based on an honest evaluation of its benefits." This would be reasonable if you were joining a gym or a quilting club. But for a church, the standard is much higher. It would be better to ask, "Is this true?"
Ms. Kelly also says, "I encourage Mormon women to ask themselves a similar question: does my participation in Mormonism spark joy?" That's a popular standard for decluttering a house (although flawed for that, too--whoever thought food storage or extra batteries 'spark joy'?). But childbirth does not spark joy, and it's worth every minute of the pain. Getting up to nurse all night does not spark joy. Cleaning toilets does not spark joy. Catching a child's vomit does not spark joy. Stepping on legos in the night doesn't spark joy. Having a child scream mean things at you for hours does not spark joy. Watching your child cry in pain or sorrow that you can't fix does not spark joy. There is not greater pain than parts of parenthood. But parenting is the most valuable, rewarding, important thing I've ever done. "Spark joy" is a stupid standard for deciding whether you want to participate in religion. Whether or not something sparks joy has nothing to do with how valuable it is in your life.
Ms. Kelly says, "It has been indescribably freeing for me to stop believing that men have control over whether or not I go to heaven." What?! I have no idea where she got that idea. Men never did have control over whether she goes to heaven. Unless she means God and Jesus, and they're doing everything they can to get her in, not keep her out. But getting to heaven is up to her, not men. And it always has been.
Ms. Kelly says, "I don't wish for Mormon women to follow me — or to follow anyone. I want them to follow their own hearts, aspirations and dreams." First of all, that's a lie. She does want women to follow her. Her actions make that abundantly clear. But, aside from that, really, shouldn't we want people to follow Jesus? Our thoughts, aspirations, and dreams often lead us to places we end up not wanting to be. Jesus is a better guide than we are ourselves. We're too blind. He can see more and farther--and He loves us.
Ms. Kelly says, "Put your faith in yourself and in women." Not in God? Not in Jesus? And what makes women any more worthy of our faith than men? They're all human, and humans don't have a great track record when it comes to being worthy of our faith.
Ms. Kelly says, "You can remove your name from the records of the church as a way to communicate to male church leaders why they can't keep you or others like you." See how she's all caught up in who has the power? The church leaders aren't trying to "keep you" (male or female leaders). They are trying to offer you something they find immensely valuable. If you don't want it, that's fine. They won't hate your for that.
Ms. Kelly says, "let church leaders know what the cost of their rigidity is." Clearly she does not believe what they have been saying all this time: they aren't being rigid; it's Jesus who is not bending to Ms. Kelly's will. The leaders are bound to follow Jesus. (Now, it's another question entirely whether you believe the apostles have access to Jesus and are following Him. But she's skipping that part.)
Ms. Kelly says, "Male leaders colonized our minds to make us think we had to play by their rules to be taken seriously." Nobody has colonized my mind. Who is she letting in to her head? (It sounds to me like feminism has colonized her mind, urging her to see oppression where it does not exist, and trying to convince all people everywhere that "patriarchy" is evil no matter what, even if God is the patriarch and Jesus is the one in charge....)
You can read her latest public "speech" (letter to the editor) here. It reminds me of a speech given many, many years ago in ancient America.
If you don't already know which ancient speech I'm referring to, I'll quote an excerpt for you. Here is Korihor:
"I do not teach the foolish traditions of your fathers, and because I do not teach this people to bind themselves down under the foolish ordinances and performances which are laid down by ancient priests, to usurp power and authority over them, to keep them in ignorance, that they may not lift up their heads, but be brought down according to thy words. Ye say that this people is a free people. Behold, I say they are in bondage. Ye say that those ancient prophecies are true. Behold, I say that ye do not know that they are true.... And thus ye lead away this people after the foolish traditions of your fathers, and according to your own desires; and ye keep them down, even as it were in bondage, that ye may glut yourselves with the labors of their hands, that they durst not look up with boldness, and that they durst not enjoy their rights and privileges.Yea, they durst not make use of that which is their own lest they should offend their priests, who do yoke them according to their desires, and have brought them to believe, by their traditions and their dreams and their whims and their visions and their pretended mysteries, that they should, if they did not do according to their words, offend some unknown being, who they say is God—a being who never has been seen or known, who never was nor ever will be." (Alma 30:23-24, 27-28)
Except for two things:
1. Kate Kelly doesn't deny God exists. She just insists we all don't understand Him.
2. Korihor spent a long time trying to convince the people that Jesus didn't exist. Kate Kelly just conveniently ignores Jesus altogether. She is not interested, apparently, in humility and repentance, but in who has the power (as she perceives it) and how she, personally, can get it away from them as fast as possible. And she's led a lot of "women, and also men" astray with her "great swelling words," just like Korihor.
I remember being quite distressed by my English teachers at BYU--until I found Korihor's teachings in Alma 30 and realized modern feminism, the way it's taught by a lot of people, is just the same doctrines with fancy new catchphrases.
And Kate Kelly's stuff is right in there, too. It makes me sad for her. But if she wants to walk away, that's her choice. Really, she left a long time ago. She's just formalized it now.
If you don't already know which ancient speech I'm referring to, I'll quote an excerpt for you. Here is Korihor:
"I do not teach the foolish traditions of your fathers, and because I do not teach this people to bind themselves down under the foolish ordinances and performances which are laid down by ancient priests, to usurp power and authority over them, to keep them in ignorance, that they may not lift up their heads, but be brought down according to thy words. Ye say that this people is a free people. Behold, I say they are in bondage. Ye say that those ancient prophecies are true. Behold, I say that ye do not know that they are true.... And thus ye lead away this people after the foolish traditions of your fathers, and according to your own desires; and ye keep them down, even as it were in bondage, that ye may glut yourselves with the labors of their hands, that they durst not look up with boldness, and that they durst not enjoy their rights and privileges.Yea, they durst not make use of that which is their own lest they should offend their priests, who do yoke them according to their desires, and have brought them to believe, by their traditions and their dreams and their whims and their visions and their pretended mysteries, that they should, if they did not do according to their words, offend some unknown being, who they say is God—a being who never has been seen or known, who never was nor ever will be." (Alma 30:23-24, 27-28)
Except for two things:
1. Kate Kelly doesn't deny God exists. She just insists we all don't understand Him.
2. Korihor spent a long time trying to convince the people that Jesus didn't exist. Kate Kelly just conveniently ignores Jesus altogether. She is not interested, apparently, in humility and repentance, but in who has the power (as she perceives it) and how she, personally, can get it away from them as fast as possible. And she's led a lot of "women, and also men" astray with her "great swelling words," just like Korihor.
I remember being quite distressed by my English teachers at BYU--until I found Korihor's teachings in Alma 30 and realized modern feminism, the way it's taught by a lot of people, is just the same doctrines with fancy new catchphrases.
And Kate Kelly's stuff is right in there, too. It makes me sad for her. But if she wants to walk away, that's her choice. Really, she left a long time ago. She's just formalized it now.
Kate Kelly's back in the news
Kate Kelly flew back from Kenya (Nigeria?) to help people leave the church. This despite her insistence for so long that she's not fighting against the church or trying to lead people away.
So that got me thinking about feminism in general again, and why I don't like it.
I concluded that part of the big issue for me is not the details or the deciding for all women what will make them happy (without asking the women involved).
I think the issue is closer to what a sister-in-law told me years ago: Feminism is a world view that teaches you to see everything in terms of power and oppression. If you focus on oppression, you will see it everywhere. And, as my sister-in-law observed, that doesn't make you happy. It ruins relationships; it destroys marriages; it crushes your children.
The world is not actually all about oppression and victimization, but so many feminists only see that. In everything. Every single interaction is about who has the power and who doesn't.
In the end, that's what feminism is about.
It's not about opportunity or equality or fairness or justice or living happy, fulfilled lives.
No, at its core, feminism is this: someone has the power, and someone else wants it, and who should we give it to? Me.
That's the bottom line for Kate Kelly: she perceives that someone else has power and she wants it, plain and simple. She felt justified. She used lovely rhetoric to convince a lot of unhappy people that more power would be the answer, and that power is held by people and we should go out and get it.
She completely missed that it's God's church and God's power in question.
But that's possibly because feminism doesn't think that way. If you listen to them, the entire world view is a discussion of oppression and power, and turning the victims into the victimizers (it's so very Puritan--leave England to escape oppression so we can oppress people ourselves, according to our own standards).
And, like my wise sister-in-law said, feminism can train you to see oppression. But then you see it everywhere, and it doesn't make you happy.
(I also found it amusing that Kate Kelly's standard for deciding to stay in the church or not had nothing to do with truth or Christ and everything to do with decluttering, as if the Church is an unmatched sock or a broken crock pot you finally decided to get rid of.)
So that got me thinking about feminism in general again, and why I don't like it.
I concluded that part of the big issue for me is not the details or the deciding for all women what will make them happy (without asking the women involved).
I think the issue is closer to what a sister-in-law told me years ago: Feminism is a world view that teaches you to see everything in terms of power and oppression. If you focus on oppression, you will see it everywhere. And, as my sister-in-law observed, that doesn't make you happy. It ruins relationships; it destroys marriages; it crushes your children.
The world is not actually all about oppression and victimization, but so many feminists only see that. In everything. Every single interaction is about who has the power and who doesn't.
In the end, that's what feminism is about.
It's not about opportunity or equality or fairness or justice or living happy, fulfilled lives.
No, at its core, feminism is this: someone has the power, and someone else wants it, and who should we give it to? Me.
That's the bottom line for Kate Kelly: she perceives that someone else has power and she wants it, plain and simple. She felt justified. She used lovely rhetoric to convince a lot of unhappy people that more power would be the answer, and that power is held by people and we should go out and get it.
She completely missed that it's God's church and God's power in question.
But that's possibly because feminism doesn't think that way. If you listen to them, the entire world view is a discussion of oppression and power, and turning the victims into the victimizers (it's so very Puritan--leave England to escape oppression so we can oppress people ourselves, according to our own standards).
And, like my wise sister-in-law said, feminism can train you to see oppression. But then you see it everywhere, and it doesn't make you happy.
(I also found it amusing that Kate Kelly's standard for deciding to stay in the church or not had nothing to do with truth or Christ and everything to do with decluttering, as if the Church is an unmatched sock or a broken crock pot you finally decided to get rid of.)
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
How I got rid of warts with duct tape
I never have warts. Until this last pregnancy. And then I had three, one after another. People have asked me how I got rid of them with duct tape, so here's the scoop:
I read online that you can get rid of warts with duct tape, and that people have done legit studies that showed that duct tape was more effective than "freezing" warts in a doctor's office, and less painful.
I figured I'd try it. I had duct tape, and I didn't like my warts--they were each painful to walk on.
Here's how I did it:
I put a piece of duct tape over the wart. I left it on all the time except for 2-6 hours once a week. If the tape fell of, I put a new piece on as soon as I could. (Some people say you should file the wart with an emery board when you remove the duct tape, but I didn't do that and it worked anyway.)
That's it. It took the pain away so I could walk, and then the warts went away.
It took about 8 weeks, though, which I hear is about how long any method takes. For a long, long time, there was no change in the warts. And then suddenly one week I'd peel off the tape and find a "seed" had been exposed. A week of taping later, it was gone, and a week later the wart went away. So if you try this, don't give up if it takes a long time and doesn't look like anything is happening.
I did discover, though, that not just any old duct tape works. The new "light" varieties actually cause your healthy skin to peel off in big sheets but make the warts worse. So don't use the "light" variety. If you tear off a piece of duct tape and examine the sticky side, it has to have visibly white adhesive for it to work for wart removal. If you peel the duct tape off your skin after a couple of days and examine the adhesive, you should be able to see a very clear "Fingerprint" (or foot print or whatever) that shows all the tiny lines in your skin imprinted in the adhesive. If you can't, you have the wrong kind of duct tape and it won't work.
So that's it. Easy as pie. Effective. Painless. Inexpensive. That's my kind of cure.
I read online that you can get rid of warts with duct tape, and that people have done legit studies that showed that duct tape was more effective than "freezing" warts in a doctor's office, and less painful.
I figured I'd try it. I had duct tape, and I didn't like my warts--they were each painful to walk on.
Here's how I did it:
I put a piece of duct tape over the wart. I left it on all the time except for 2-6 hours once a week. If the tape fell of, I put a new piece on as soon as I could. (Some people say you should file the wart with an emery board when you remove the duct tape, but I didn't do that and it worked anyway.)
That's it. It took the pain away so I could walk, and then the warts went away.
It took about 8 weeks, though, which I hear is about how long any method takes. For a long, long time, there was no change in the warts. And then suddenly one week I'd peel off the tape and find a "seed" had been exposed. A week of taping later, it was gone, and a week later the wart went away. So if you try this, don't give up if it takes a long time and doesn't look like anything is happening.
I did discover, though, that not just any old duct tape works. The new "light" varieties actually cause your healthy skin to peel off in big sheets but make the warts worse. So don't use the "light" variety. If you tear off a piece of duct tape and examine the sticky side, it has to have visibly white adhesive for it to work for wart removal. If you peel the duct tape off your skin after a couple of days and examine the adhesive, you should be able to see a very clear "Fingerprint" (or foot print or whatever) that shows all the tiny lines in your skin imprinted in the adhesive. If you can't, you have the wrong kind of duct tape and it won't work.
So that's it. Easy as pie. Effective. Painless. Inexpensive. That's my kind of cure.
Thursday, July 16, 2015
Emmeline's Firsts this week
Emmeline's been busy with new things this week.
She got her first ear infection (both ears)
She had her first antibiotics
She figured out sitting up and got to play with toys that way for the first time
She did her first goofball cheesy smile with her eyes squinted up
And she got her first tooth.
She might also be saying her first word, but we're not entirely sure if she's saying, "Hi!" on purpose or by accident (but she says it every time she sees Tim).
She got her first ear infection (both ears)
She had her first antibiotics
She figured out sitting up and got to play with toys that way for the first time
She did her first goofball cheesy smile with her eyes squinted up
And she got her first tooth.
She might also be saying her first word, but we're not entirely sure if she's saying, "Hi!" on purpose or by accident (but she says it every time she sees Tim).
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
Something smells fishy
So I've been curious about the over-300% markup on the price of that big house (the one at 12525 Quicksilver Road), considering it was worth $200,000 just a few months ago, and tangibly the only thing that changed was they painted it and put on a new roof. That wouldn't justify going from $200,000 to $650,000, right?
I was also curious that the listing agent put in the notes on the property that it could have a Commercial/Industrial use but didn't list the property on any of the commercial real estate sites. Those are the code words for "marijuana can be grown here" in the Boulder County zoning codes right now. (Especially curious because the property actually CAN'T have those uses--it's not zoned for that). (I did try asking the real estate agent about this via email and got no response.)
And I was curious that someone would go to all the expense and trouble to get the change of use approved for the big building and then not bother to move in. Almost the instant the change of use was approved, the property was put up for sale with the exorbitant markup. But that change of use wouldn't justify the markup--unless you were trying to pass off the change of use as making pot-growing allowed on the property. (It's not, even with the change of use, because pot growing is controlled by zoning law, not by the site plan review board; also the change of use was approved for a specific business and with certain assurances in place about what that business was going to do with the property.)
So I emailed the potential tenant (the information on change of use is public record, so easy to find out who got the change of use and for what purpose) of the property to see why they decided NOT to move their business there after going through all the change of use process. I told them I would like to buy the property (I would, very much) and wondered if there was something wrong with it.
They emailed me back today that they didn't know the property was for sale and have been waiting all this time for the owners to get back to them about the change in zoning, and they're still planning to move their business there, but aren't interested in actually buying the property. (Curious because the change of use was approved--so why didn't the owners tell the tenants that? And why rush to put it up for sale with a huge markup on price immediately, before telling your tenants?)
Does this sound like I just uncovered fraud to anyone else?
What am I supposed to do about that?
Update: I emailed the realtor, and he said the deal on that property is you buy the LLC that owns it, not the property itself, specifically so that none of the permits and changes-of-use that were granted (to the company who didn't know they were granted) will be up for question like they would with a change of ownership. That way, he explained, the county can't cancel them and will have no reason to question them.
Probably the same reasoning was in play when they gutted the smaller building on the property without a permit--then you can re-do the inside without getting a building permit (supposedly) because nobody knew the drywall came down in the first place. (Although removing all the drywall in a building and stripping it to its studs seems a little excessive to get rid of cat smells. Makes me wonder if the small house had a meth problem. One more thing for the list of things to check...)
So, theoretically, the people whose application got the change of use and site plan approved don't know that, and the people who do know are trying to sell it with the unspoken understanding that they won't tell the county you aren't the same people, and you can then use it for an "intensive agricultural operation" you don't want the county to know about...
I have no idea if the whole setup is legal, but I certainly wouldn't buy without talking to a lawyer first. Quite possibly their entire intention is simply for you to take over as property manager and let the tenants (who they haven't told about the change of use yet) move in and use it like they believe they are contracted to (even though the realtor had no idea there were tenants contracted in the place until I told him).
I was also curious that the listing agent put in the notes on the property that it could have a Commercial/Industrial use but didn't list the property on any of the commercial real estate sites. Those are the code words for "marijuana can be grown here" in the Boulder County zoning codes right now. (Especially curious because the property actually CAN'T have those uses--it's not zoned for that). (I did try asking the real estate agent about this via email and got no response.)
And I was curious that someone would go to all the expense and trouble to get the change of use approved for the big building and then not bother to move in. Almost the instant the change of use was approved, the property was put up for sale with the exorbitant markup. But that change of use wouldn't justify the markup--unless you were trying to pass off the change of use as making pot-growing allowed on the property. (It's not, even with the change of use, because pot growing is controlled by zoning law, not by the site plan review board; also the change of use was approved for a specific business and with certain assurances in place about what that business was going to do with the property.)
So I emailed the potential tenant (the information on change of use is public record, so easy to find out who got the change of use and for what purpose) of the property to see why they decided NOT to move their business there after going through all the change of use process. I told them I would like to buy the property (I would, very much) and wondered if there was something wrong with it.
They emailed me back today that they didn't know the property was for sale and have been waiting all this time for the owners to get back to them about the change in zoning, and they're still planning to move their business there, but aren't interested in actually buying the property. (Curious because the change of use was approved--so why didn't the owners tell the tenants that? And why rush to put it up for sale with a huge markup on price immediately, before telling your tenants?)
Does this sound like I just uncovered fraud to anyone else?
What am I supposed to do about that?
Update: I emailed the realtor, and he said the deal on that property is you buy the LLC that owns it, not the property itself, specifically so that none of the permits and changes-of-use that were granted (to the company who didn't know they were granted) will be up for question like they would with a change of ownership. That way, he explained, the county can't cancel them and will have no reason to question them.
Probably the same reasoning was in play when they gutted the smaller building on the property without a permit--then you can re-do the inside without getting a building permit (supposedly) because nobody knew the drywall came down in the first place. (Although removing all the drywall in a building and stripping it to its studs seems a little excessive to get rid of cat smells. Makes me wonder if the small house had a meth problem. One more thing for the list of things to check...)
So, theoretically, the people whose application got the change of use and site plan approved don't know that, and the people who do know are trying to sell it with the unspoken understanding that they won't tell the county you aren't the same people, and you can then use it for an "intensive agricultural operation" you don't want the county to know about...
I have no idea if the whole setup is legal, but I certainly wouldn't buy without talking to a lawyer first. Quite possibly their entire intention is simply for you to take over as property manager and let the tenants (who they haven't told about the change of use yet) move in and use it like they believe they are contracted to (even though the realtor had no idea there were tenants contracted in the place until I told him).
Sunday, July 12, 2015
Making licorice
I've been trying to make red licorice (red vines style; twizzlers are inedible) for years now, off and on. This week I bought a bag of red vines and noticed the ingredients consist of corn syrup, wheat flour, flavoring, coloring, and citric acid.
There's not much you can do with those ingredients, so I started experimenting.
First I tried cooking the corn syrup (1/2 cup) to soft crack stage, stirring in flour (2 tbsp) and kool aid powder (flavor, color, and citric acid in one fell swoop; half a packet), and then pulling it like taffy (on the assumption that licorice is like a modified taffy). It came out this really cool candy that shattered when I dropped it or smacked it into anything, but became quite taffy-chewy when you sucked it for a minute. Tasted good, too. Tastes good, fun to eat--but not licorice.
Then I tried cooking it to soft ball stage (1/2 c corn syrup) and adding flour (3-4 tbsp this time) and kool aid powder (the other half packet), rolling it into ropes, and letting it cool. It tasted great and was quite sticky to eat, but didn't hold its shape like licorice.
So I got back online and instead of reading "how do I make licorice" posts, I watched a "how licorice is made" video and got some ideas. First of all, they mixed the ingredients up front and kept them cooking and stirring for a long time at 190 degrees (not to hard ball stage by any means). Then they cooled and shaped the dough, and cooked it again for a long, long time.
So the process was more like making fruit leather.
So new attempts: I mixed up 1/2 c corn syrup, half a packet of kool aid powder, and 1/4 c flour. It was way too liquidy to shape, so I cooked it to hard ball stage. But it was still too liquidy to shape. The cooking did cook out the starchy flavor of the flour, though, which was a very good thing. I was in a hurry and didn't bother to cool it (they cool it 24 hours in the factory), so I poured the mixture into a drying tray and put it into my fruit dryer.
Then, since the dryer was going anyway, I threw together a recipe that flipped the proportions (I read on one website that it was more flour than corn syrup, even though the package would indicate it's more corn syrup than flour). I put in half a cup of flour and 1/4 c corn syrup, and then kool aid powder and a little more flour, until it was doughy. It was very sticky. I formed it into ropes and put that in the fruit dryer, too, and then tried mixing flour, a teaspoon of corn syrup, and 1/8 c of jam and made ropes from that, just to see what would happen.
At the moment, all of them are still drying, but the one that I poured into a drying tray all liquidy is making something very close to licorice. I am pretty excited about the possibilities here.
Next time, I'll let it cool first and see if I can form ropes....
There's not much you can do with those ingredients, so I started experimenting.
First I tried cooking the corn syrup (1/2 cup) to soft crack stage, stirring in flour (2 tbsp) and kool aid powder (flavor, color, and citric acid in one fell swoop; half a packet), and then pulling it like taffy (on the assumption that licorice is like a modified taffy). It came out this really cool candy that shattered when I dropped it or smacked it into anything, but became quite taffy-chewy when you sucked it for a minute. Tasted good, too. Tastes good, fun to eat--but not licorice.
Then I tried cooking it to soft ball stage (1/2 c corn syrup) and adding flour (3-4 tbsp this time) and kool aid powder (the other half packet), rolling it into ropes, and letting it cool. It tasted great and was quite sticky to eat, but didn't hold its shape like licorice.
So I got back online and instead of reading "how do I make licorice" posts, I watched a "how licorice is made" video and got some ideas. First of all, they mixed the ingredients up front and kept them cooking and stirring for a long time at 190 degrees (not to hard ball stage by any means). Then they cooled and shaped the dough, and cooked it again for a long, long time.
So the process was more like making fruit leather.
So new attempts: I mixed up 1/2 c corn syrup, half a packet of kool aid powder, and 1/4 c flour. It was way too liquidy to shape, so I cooked it to hard ball stage. But it was still too liquidy to shape. The cooking did cook out the starchy flavor of the flour, though, which was a very good thing. I was in a hurry and didn't bother to cool it (they cool it 24 hours in the factory), so I poured the mixture into a drying tray and put it into my fruit dryer.
Then, since the dryer was going anyway, I threw together a recipe that flipped the proportions (I read on one website that it was more flour than corn syrup, even though the package would indicate it's more corn syrup than flour). I put in half a cup of flour and 1/4 c corn syrup, and then kool aid powder and a little more flour, until it was doughy. It was very sticky. I formed it into ropes and put that in the fruit dryer, too, and then tried mixing flour, a teaspoon of corn syrup, and 1/8 c of jam and made ropes from that, just to see what would happen.
At the moment, all of them are still drying, but the one that I poured into a drying tray all liquidy is making something very close to licorice. I am pretty excited about the possibilities here.
Next time, I'll let it cool first and see if I can form ropes....
Monday, July 06, 2015
Sometimes it's good to turn around
Even though mostly my blog is unread and unknown except to my children and family, I find this blog post really scary to write. Why? Because I don't agree with the homosexual movement, feminist movement, and intellectual movement (not talking about individuals here--I mean the movement, which attempts to make all people including all homosexuals toe their line), and they are notorious for being close-minded, selfish, aggressive, and CRUEL--very cruel--about any ideas that go counter to their own. They hold grudges, they are intellectually rigid and refuse to consider other views (especially "faithful" views), and they find no shame in publicly smearing and attempting to outright destroy anyone who speaks anything against their current agenda. And I hate conflict and hate fighting. It's very upsetting to me to be vilified because I disagree with powerful, aggressive people who feel compelled to SQUASH any dissent, instantly and as viciously as possible.
And no, I'm not trying to do that myself. I'm trying here to let my children know what I think about those movements. They can believe what they want--and I don't have to to agree. Even if they think that kind of dissent from their doctrines is dangerous and must be suppressed.
Personally, I think forcing any one view on the majority is extremely dangerous, and I'm disheartened that the people who espouse "tolerance" and "free thinking" are the most aggressive as putting down and destroying anyone who disagrees with them.
So I post this in fear and trembling. But I want to say it anyway.
I have been thinking a lot (still) about how offended people have been that Elder Packer said that three dangers to the Lord's work (or the church?) are intellectuals, feminists, and the gay-lesbian movement.
It so fascinates me that the people who were most offended publicly said (and continue to say), "I am not a danger to the church." And then they go about actively trying to destroy other people's faith, publicly fighting against the church, and otherwise trying to show that the church is actually a danger to them. (And I still can't figure out why they don't just bow out if they don't believe, instead of trying to force the entire organization to validate their own beliefs and follow them instead).
Mostly, though, I've been thinking about how they treat the idea as a new idea that is offensive to them. But none of these three are new dangers to the work of God. The scriptures are full full full of examples of these dangers. Korihor, for example, teaches things that I identified at BYU as the core beliefs of most of my feminist professors. The scriptures talk about "silly women" and warn of the dangers of the homosexual movement teachings being at odds with the gospel.
Not only that, despite the pronouncement being baffling to those heavily involved in the three "warning" groups, it is pretty clear to a lot of the rest of us that those really are dangers.
Like the internet, these philosophies are pleasing to our minds, easy to get lost in, and distracting. They allow us to limit our views in ways that make us feel and seem powerful, without any understanding that it's all smoke and mirrors, or that being powerful in an echo chamber just means you're shouting louder than the next guy. It reminds me of the story of Narcissus, so enamored with looking at his own reflection that he died. It's just tempting to see our reflection in other people and limit our lives to interacting with addicting philosophies and the people who reflect our own ideas back to us. It's comfortable. It's the very thing the feminists and intellectuals claim they're trying to save us all from--and they are doing it, too. Maybe more.
Every time the mormon feminists and their intellectual buddies start throwing yet another public tantrum (polished and beautiful, but still a tantrum) to try to convince the brethren (sometimes) or the other member (usually) that they (the feminists and intellectuals) are right and the church must change to acknowledge this, I just want to cry. The church is working so hard to do so many difficult and important things. It's really shameful to see a bunch of intelligent, gifted, tireless, hard-working women wasting their superpowers attacking the church, and insisting on wasting the brethren's time with things that have already been addressed and that really are not as important or pressing as the feminists and intellectuals insist they must be.
It seems like it would be so much more valuable for the feminists and intellectuals to turn their prodigious energies and talents to helping God with his work instead of fighting. I know they think they are doing God's work, fighting for His will--but against the church? How can they not see that it makes no sense? (If you believe in the church, then you acknowledge the authority and therefore shouldn't be fighting it this way; if you don't believe in the church, then why are you fighting it? For example, I still cannot comprehend how the Ordain Women people can be so aggressive about fighting to be ordained to a priesthood that they don't respect or believe is actually valid!)
I just wish they would back off, turn around from their tight circles of friends who all smile and agree with each other, and start serving the people around them, including the "stupid" people and not just the people who have been offended or have disenfranchised themselves. The world is full of people to love and work to do, and I don't get the impression that feminists or intellectuals are very interested in loving and understanding--they fight to be right and to be heard, not to love more.
Somewhat ironically, the very changes the feminists and intellectuals are thrilled about did NOT come from aggressive people throwing fits. They came from righteous women who turned outward, served selflessly, and pointed out problems as they saw them in appropriate ways and times. You don't get power in God's kingdom by agitating. You get it by serving.
Every time the mormon feminists and the intellectuals speak, I want to show them D&C 121, and hope they understand that dominion is not something we grab or fight for--it's something that willingly comes to us when we righteously serve, truly love, and forget ourselves and our needs, putting ourselves, our desires, our needs second to God's.
Every time they open their mouths to complain from their place of privilege about one more philosophical hangup, I want to turn them around and say, 'Forget yourself and get to work.'
And no, I'm not trying to do that myself. I'm trying here to let my children know what I think about those movements. They can believe what they want--and I don't have to to agree. Even if they think that kind of dissent from their doctrines is dangerous and must be suppressed.
Personally, I think forcing any one view on the majority is extremely dangerous, and I'm disheartened that the people who espouse "tolerance" and "free thinking" are the most aggressive as putting down and destroying anyone who disagrees with them.
So I post this in fear and trembling. But I want to say it anyway.
I have been thinking a lot (still) about how offended people have been that Elder Packer said that three dangers to the Lord's work (or the church?) are intellectuals, feminists, and the gay-lesbian movement.
It so fascinates me that the people who were most offended publicly said (and continue to say), "I am not a danger to the church." And then they go about actively trying to destroy other people's faith, publicly fighting against the church, and otherwise trying to show that the church is actually a danger to them. (And I still can't figure out why they don't just bow out if they don't believe, instead of trying to force the entire organization to validate their own beliefs and follow them instead).
Mostly, though, I've been thinking about how they treat the idea as a new idea that is offensive to them. But none of these three are new dangers to the work of God. The scriptures are full full full of examples of these dangers. Korihor, for example, teaches things that I identified at BYU as the core beliefs of most of my feminist professors. The scriptures talk about "silly women" and warn of the dangers of the homosexual movement teachings being at odds with the gospel.
Not only that, despite the pronouncement being baffling to those heavily involved in the three "warning" groups, it is pretty clear to a lot of the rest of us that those really are dangers.
Like the internet, these philosophies are pleasing to our minds, easy to get lost in, and distracting. They allow us to limit our views in ways that make us feel and seem powerful, without any understanding that it's all smoke and mirrors, or that being powerful in an echo chamber just means you're shouting louder than the next guy. It reminds me of the story of Narcissus, so enamored with looking at his own reflection that he died. It's just tempting to see our reflection in other people and limit our lives to interacting with addicting philosophies and the people who reflect our own ideas back to us. It's comfortable. It's the very thing the feminists and intellectuals claim they're trying to save us all from--and they are doing it, too. Maybe more.
Every time the mormon feminists and their intellectual buddies start throwing yet another public tantrum (polished and beautiful, but still a tantrum) to try to convince the brethren (sometimes) or the other member (usually) that they (the feminists and intellectuals) are right and the church must change to acknowledge this, I just want to cry. The church is working so hard to do so many difficult and important things. It's really shameful to see a bunch of intelligent, gifted, tireless, hard-working women wasting their superpowers attacking the church, and insisting on wasting the brethren's time with things that have already been addressed and that really are not as important or pressing as the feminists and intellectuals insist they must be.
It seems like it would be so much more valuable for the feminists and intellectuals to turn their prodigious energies and talents to helping God with his work instead of fighting. I know they think they are doing God's work, fighting for His will--but against the church? How can they not see that it makes no sense? (If you believe in the church, then you acknowledge the authority and therefore shouldn't be fighting it this way; if you don't believe in the church, then why are you fighting it? For example, I still cannot comprehend how the Ordain Women people can be so aggressive about fighting to be ordained to a priesthood that they don't respect or believe is actually valid!)
I just wish they would back off, turn around from their tight circles of friends who all smile and agree with each other, and start serving the people around them, including the "stupid" people and not just the people who have been offended or have disenfranchised themselves. The world is full of people to love and work to do, and I don't get the impression that feminists or intellectuals are very interested in loving and understanding--they fight to be right and to be heard, not to love more.
Somewhat ironically, the very changes the feminists and intellectuals are thrilled about did NOT come from aggressive people throwing fits. They came from righteous women who turned outward, served selflessly, and pointed out problems as they saw them in appropriate ways and times. You don't get power in God's kingdom by agitating. You get it by serving.
Every time the mormon feminists and the intellectuals speak, I want to show them D&C 121, and hope they understand that dominion is not something we grab or fight for--it's something that willingly comes to us when we righteously serve, truly love, and forget ourselves and our needs, putting ourselves, our desires, our needs second to God's.
Every time they open their mouths to complain from their place of privilege about one more philosophical hangup, I want to turn them around and say, 'Forget yourself and get to work.'
Saturday, July 04, 2015
Prophets
Suppose, for a minute, that you understand a prophet to be a man who has divine authority to both speak to God and officially bring his messages to you.
Suppose that you acknowledge and accept that a certain man is, in fact, a real true prophet.
Suppose, then, that he comes to you and says that your deeply held beliefs are at odds with what God wants.
What do you do?
As I see it, you have very few choices.
You can reexamine your beliefs and pray to God to bring your ideas in line with His, being patient and studying from His word (not commentaries on it), and sometimes choosing to not understand. This takes a great deal of humility because it requires that you trust God even if you don't understand what He is doing. It's the ultimate, "Perhaps I am wrong?"
Or you can say, "That man is actually not a prophet. I reject his words. He doesn't talk to God."
Or you can say, in outright rebellion, "God doesn't know what he is doing. I know more than God. I won't change."
Any other response is either disingenuous, or an outright lie, or one of these three in disguise.
With President Packer's death, I've read a few articles about him (very few). He has been an enemy to the liberals for some time, and some of them are writing articles eulogizing him (and, I'm guessing, some are writing celebrating his death, which is kind of appalling).
At least one of the articles captured exactly the liberal mormon attitude I've seen about Elder Packer over the years. It's a startling and scary attitude, where the writers say they acknowledge that he was a prophet, but then say his words deeply offended them, and how hard that must be for HIM, and how holily out-of-touch he was (not hard for them--no hint of accepting that maybe their own personal beliefs are wrong; only that his words were wrong). (You can read it here: http://bycommonconsent.com/2011/10/04/boyd-k-packer-and-prophetic-despair/#more-29663: It's easy to get caught up in the emotional ideas that prophets are lonely and out of sync with the world, and easy to miss the "he was an idiot, too" attitude underlying some of this.) Like I said, I didn't read a lot of articles because I've seen this so many times from liberal friends about Elder Packer that I couldn't stomach any more of it. Either he's a prophet and you're wrong, or he's not a prophet and you might still be wrong, but you might not.
But it's not possible for him to be a prophet and for these liberal friends to also be 100% right like they think they are.
So here's the thing I'm thinking: It's one of three responses if a prophet tells you you're wrong. And then you have three choices of response: you can repent, rebel, or ignore. Two of those don't seem like very smart choices to me, given the "all is well in zion" warnings and the "wicked taketh the truth to be hard" warnings in the scriptures.
But if a prophet says you're wrong, you might be wise to make sure he's really a prophet, and then listen. Because God really does know more than we do, even if He makes no sense to us at all (and especially when He makes little sense, but we make a lot of sense to ourselves. It's so tempting to set our own ideas up as our idols that we worship.)
Suppose that you acknowledge and accept that a certain man is, in fact, a real true prophet.
Suppose, then, that he comes to you and says that your deeply held beliefs are at odds with what God wants.
What do you do?
As I see it, you have very few choices.
You can reexamine your beliefs and pray to God to bring your ideas in line with His, being patient and studying from His word (not commentaries on it), and sometimes choosing to not understand. This takes a great deal of humility because it requires that you trust God even if you don't understand what He is doing. It's the ultimate, "Perhaps I am wrong?"
Or you can say, "That man is actually not a prophet. I reject his words. He doesn't talk to God."
Or you can say, in outright rebellion, "God doesn't know what he is doing. I know more than God. I won't change."
Any other response is either disingenuous, or an outright lie, or one of these three in disguise.
With President Packer's death, I've read a few articles about him (very few). He has been an enemy to the liberals for some time, and some of them are writing articles eulogizing him (and, I'm guessing, some are writing celebrating his death, which is kind of appalling).
At least one of the articles captured exactly the liberal mormon attitude I've seen about Elder Packer over the years. It's a startling and scary attitude, where the writers say they acknowledge that he was a prophet, but then say his words deeply offended them, and how hard that must be for HIM, and how holily out-of-touch he was (not hard for them--no hint of accepting that maybe their own personal beliefs are wrong; only that his words were wrong). (You can read it here: http://bycommonconsent.com/2011/10/04/boyd-k-packer-and-prophetic-despair/#more-29663: It's easy to get caught up in the emotional ideas that prophets are lonely and out of sync with the world, and easy to miss the "he was an idiot, too" attitude underlying some of this.) Like I said, I didn't read a lot of articles because I've seen this so many times from liberal friends about Elder Packer that I couldn't stomach any more of it. Either he's a prophet and you're wrong, or he's not a prophet and you might still be wrong, but you might not.
But it's not possible for him to be a prophet and for these liberal friends to also be 100% right like they think they are.
So here's the thing I'm thinking: It's one of three responses if a prophet tells you you're wrong. And then you have three choices of response: you can repent, rebel, or ignore. Two of those don't seem like very smart choices to me, given the "all is well in zion" warnings and the "wicked taketh the truth to be hard" warnings in the scriptures.
But if a prophet says you're wrong, you might be wise to make sure he's really a prophet, and then listen. Because God really does know more than we do, even if He makes no sense to us at all (and especially when He makes little sense, but we make a lot of sense to ourselves. It's so tempting to set our own ideas up as our idols that we worship.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)